Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 285

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS ( 155 , 175 ) MOTIONS TO STRIKE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

TESSERA, INC.,

4

Plaintiff,

5
6

No. C 12-692 CW
ORDER ADOPTING
SPECIAL MASTER’S
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO STRIKE
(Docket Nos. 155,
175)

v.

7

MOTOROLA, INC.; QUALCOMM, INC.;
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.;
and ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,

8

Defendants.

9

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Defendants Qualcomm, Inc. and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

move to strike Plaintiff Tessera, Inc.’s amended disclosure of
asserted claims and infringement contentions.
175.1

Docket Nos. 155,

The Special Master has filed a report, recommending that

the motions be denied.

Docket No. 1026 in Case No. 05-4063.

Defendants object to the Special Master’s report and
recommendation.

Having considered the papers filed by the

parties, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objections and ADOPTS the
Special Master’s report and recommendation.
Defendants contend that Tessera’s infringement contentions
are deficient because Tessera does not “identity how the
displacement between the terminal and the contact (chip)
incorporates what Tessera contends is the claimed movement.”
Objections, 2.

However, as the Special Master points out, this

goes beyond what Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) requires.

This rule

26
1

27
28

Defendant ATI Technologies ULC joined Freescale’s motion to
strike. After that joinder was filed, the Court granted Tessera
and ATI’s stipulation to dismiss the claims and counterclaims
between them. Docket No. 269.

1

mandates that the party claiming patent infringement serve a

2

“chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each

3

asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.”

4

Patent Local Rule 3-1(c).

5

for the purposes of its infringement contentions.

6

Renesas Tech. Corp. v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 2005 WL 2000926, at *7

7

(N.D. Cal.) (“neither the Local Rules or the court’s order require

8

Renesas to provide values for the voltages and amplitude levels it

9

identifies.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Tessera has done this, which is enough
See, e.g.,

It must only identify where these elements are found

in the accused products--which it has done.”).
Similarly, to the extent that Qualcomm argues that Tessera

12

should have been required to disclose “Tessera’s bases for

13

alleging Qualcomm’s knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit” under Patent

14

Local Rule 3-1(d), Qualcomm seeks information that goes beyond the

15

requirements of the local rules.

16

3-1(d) requires,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Objections, 4.

Local Rule

For each claim which is alleged to have been indirectly
infringed, an identification of any direct infringement
and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect
infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct
infringement. Insofar as alleged direct infringement is
based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of
each such party in the direct infringement must be
described.
Thus, this rule does not require the party alleging indirect
infringement to make allegations related to the knowledge of the
accused infringer or identify why it believes the accused
infringer knows about the patents-in-suit.
Finally, Defendants argue that the Special Master erred in
finding that Tessera’s use of representative diagrams and claim
charts in its infringement contentions was proper.
2

They contend

1

that Tessera’s submission “does not, without more, satisfy

2

Tessera’s obligation to separately identify and provide claim

3

charts for each Accused Instrumentality.”

4

However, as the Special Master stated, “[r]epresentative models

5

may be used where there is commonality among the elements.”

6

Report and Recommendation, 3.

7

explain how Tessera demonstrated that commonality existed among

8

the accused products in the fundamental characteristics at issue

9

here.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Objections, 5.

The Special Master then went on to

Defendants have not argued or shown that this was

incorrect.

11

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objections and

12

ADOPTS the Special Master’s recommendation to deny their motions

13

to strike.

14

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 155 and 175.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated:

8/13/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3