Aavid Thermalloy LLC v. Cooler Master Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 54

ORDER re 49 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Aavid Thermalloy LLC, CMI USA, Inc., Cooler Master Co., Ltd., Boyd Corporation, 52 Status Report filed by Aavid Thermalloy LLC, CMI USA, Inc., Cooler Master Co., Ltd., Boyd Corporation.As set forth in the attached order, the court denies Aavid's motion to compel. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on May 10, 2018. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)
ORDER ADJUDICATING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

v.
COOLER MASTER CO., LTD., et al.,

Re: ECF Nos. 49, 52

Defendants.

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff Aavid Thermalloy LLC (“Aavid”) brings this patent-infringement suit against

19

defendants Cooler Master Co. Ltd. and CMI USA, Inc. (collectively, “Cooler Master”). Aavid

20

holds three patents-at-issue that relate to “vapor chamber cooling devices” and alleges that Cooler

21

Master makes vapor chambers that infringe on its patents. (Cooler Master Co. Ltd. has also filed a

22

counterclaim against Aavid and its parent company Boyd Corp., alleging theft of trade secrets and

23

other claims.)

24
25

Aavid moves to compel Cooler Master to provide discovery of designs and features of Cooler
Master’s vapor-chamber products not specifically identified in Aavid’s Local Patent Rule 3-1(b)

26
27
28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

1

infringement contentions.1 Cooler Master argues that courts in this district generally deny

2

discovery into products that have not been identified in a plaintiff’s infringement contentions.

3

Aavid argues that courts make an exception where the plaintiff could not have discovered the

4

infringing products absent discovery. The court held a discovery hearing on May 10, 2018. For the

5

following reasons, the court denies Aavid’s motion to compel.

6
7

STATEMENT

8

Local Patent Rule 3-1 requires a party claiming patent infringement (here, Aavid) to serve all

9

parties with a “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.” Local Patent Rule

10

3-1(b) provides that this disclosure must include:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

14

Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device,
process, method, act, or other instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality”) of each
opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific
as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or
model number, if known. Each method or process shall be identified by name, if
known, or by any product, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results
in the practice of the claimed method or process[.]

15

Aavid identified four products in its Rule 3-1(b) disclosure, identified as part numbers 430-

12
13

16

046761, 430-046762, 430-046763, and 430-046764.2 Aavid did not identify additional allegedly

17

infringing products in its disclosure. Instead, it issued (1) a request that Cooler Master produce

18

“[d]ocuments sufficient to identify each of the Products that Defendants have made, used, offered

19

to sell, or sold within the United States, or imported into the United States, since January 1, 2017,”

20

(2) an interrogatory asking Cooler Master to “[i]dentify each Product that has been made, used,

21

offered for sale, or sold within the United States or has been imported into the United States by

22

Cooler Master since January 1, 2017, including part numbers, serial numbers, stock-keeping units

23

(SKU), and any other Cooler Master or CMI part identifiers necessary to differentiate between

24

each Product,” and (3) a request that Cooler Master “[a]dmit that since January 1, 2017, Cooler

25
See Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 49 at 2; Joint Status Update Letter – ECF No. 52. Citations refer to
material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page
numbers at the top of documents.
1

26
27

2

May 10, 2018 Hr’g; accord Joint Letter Br. Ex 2 – ECF No. 49 at 11–12.

28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

2

1

Master has offered to sell within the United States one or more Products.”3 For all of these

2

requests, Aavid defined “Product” and “Products” as “Defendants’ vapor chamber product(s)

3

incorporating one or more mounting holes through the vapor chamber (regardless of the shape of

4

the vapor chamber), such as the mounting holes identified below: [image omitted].”4

5
6

ANALYSIS
The goal of Local Patent Rule 3-1 is to make discovery manageable, and to that end, courts in

7

this district often deny discovery into products and instrumentalities that were not accused in the

9

preliminary infringement contentions. See Kelora Sys., LLC v. Target Corp., No. C 11-01548 CW

10

(LB), 2011 WL 5444419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (citing cases). Courts have recognized an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

exception, however, and “have found that discovery of unaccused products is permissible ‘if the

12

plaintiff does not know of the allegedly infringing product when it serves its infringement

13

contentions and could not have discovered the product absent discovery.’” Monolithic Power Sys.,

14

Inc. v. Silergy Corp., No. 14-cv-01745-VC (KAW), 2015 WL 5948159, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14,

15

2015) (quoting Infineon Techs. AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corp., No. C 11-6239 MMC

16

(DMR), 2012 WL 6184394, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012)). “In such circumstances, the plaintiff

17

must ‘articulate how the unknown accused products share the same, or substantially the same,

18

infringing structure’ with a named product.” Id. (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Infineon,

19

2012 WL 6184394, at *3).
Aavid asserts that it cannot identify additional allegedly infringing products of Cooler

20
21

Master’s without discovery. Aavid, however, has not made a sufficient effort to identify allegedly

22

infringing products of Cooler Master’s. Aavid contends that it “has no reasonable means for

23

determining all of the products that incorporate Defendants’ vapor chambers” and that to identify

24

all of Cooler Master’s vapor-chamber products, it “would have to purchase every such product

25
26
3

27

Joint Letter Br. Ex. 3 – ECF No. 49 at 13–14.

4

Joint Letter Br. Ex. 2 – ECF No. 49 at 11.

28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

3

1

that could conceivably incorporate a vapor chamber and disassemble the product” to examine it.5

2

Perhaps Aavid is correct that it could not identify all of Cooler Master’s products without

3

purchasing every product that incorporates a vapor chamber. But Aavid could have tried to

4

identify some of Cooler Master’s products or bought some products that incorporate vapor

5

chambers and examined them (or made other efforts to obtain and examine Cooler Master vapor

6

chambers).6 Other than conducting an unspecified internet search at an unspecified time, Aavid

7

has not identified any efforts that it made to identify allegedly infringing products of Cooler

8

Master’s.
Aavid cites a declaration from an Aavid Vice President of Engineering and Technology that

10

such efforts would be futile, because, among other things, the companies that buy vapor chambers

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

and incorporate them into the companies’ products usually prohibit vapor-chamber manufacturers

12

from marking their vapor chambers with their name or logo, making it impossible for Aavid to

13

identify which vapor chambers may have been made by Cooling Master.7 But the Vice President

14

does not cite any factual support for his assertion (such as, e.g., that he bought products that

15

incorporated vapor chambers, disassembled them, and saw that the vapor chambers were in fact

16

not marked).8 The court will not excuse Aavid from the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-1(b)

17

and grant Aavid’s discovery request into Cooler Master’s product lines based on an assumption.

18

Cf. Bender v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. C 09-01152 SI, 2010 WL 1135762, at *2 (N.D.

19

Cal. Mar. 22, 2010) (“While plaintiff’s statements may not be untrue, they are based on

20

assumptions. The Court will not order defendant to produce proprietary schematics for over 200

21

products based on an assumption.”); Mediatek, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 11-5341

22
23

5

24

6

25

At the May 10, 2018 hearing, Cooler Master represented that its products can be purchased on the
open market. Aavid has not identified any efforts it has made to buy or examine any Cooler Master
product.
7

26
27

Joint Status Update Letter – ECF No. 52 at 2.

Joint Letter. Br. Ex. 1 (Gernert Decl.) – ECF No. 49 at 10 (¶ 5).

8

Cooler Master has submitted a declaration and evidence that it does mark at least some of its vapor
chambers. Joint Letter Br. Ex. 7 (Pokharna Decl.) – ECF No. 49 at 18 (¶ 3), 21 (¶ 11). It also asserted
at the May 18, 2018 hearing that its products are commercially available.

28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

4

1

YGR (JSC), 2013 WL 588760, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013) (discovery is appropriate “only

2

upon a showing of a reasonable belief that such additional products actually exist and that they

3

cannot be discovered with publicly available information”); see also Sage Electrochromics, Inc. v.

4

View Inc., No. C-12-06441 JST (DMR), 2013 WL 4777164, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013)

5

(allowing discovery where the plaintiff “tried and failed” to obtain samples of the defendant’s

6

products before serving its infringement contentions and described its unsuccessful efforts at a

7

discovery hearing).
Additionally, even assuming that Aavid could not identify any Cooler Master vapor-chamber

8
9

products absent discovery, Aavid’s discovery requests are overbroad. Aavid asks for documents
and information regarding all of Cooler Master’s “Products,” which Aavid defines with two

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

limitations: “[(1)] vapor chamber product(s) [(2)] incorporating one or more mounting holes

12

through the vapor chamber[.]” Setting aside the issue of whether “vapor chamber product(s)” and

13

“mounting holes through the vapor chamber” are sufficiently defined,9 Aavid’s discovery requests

14

are overbroad, because they call for documents and information for products that do not

15

necessarily share the same, or substantially the same, infringing structure as the allegedly

16

infringing products that it has identified. To take one example, Aavid states that an element of its

17

asserted patent claims is that “two bonded plates defin[e] a vapor chamber.”10 But Aavid does not

18

limit its discovery requests to “Products” that conform to this limitation, and it does not explain

19

how non-conforming products share the same, or substantially the same, infringing structure as

20

allegedly infringing products. Aavid has not established why this discovery would be proper. Cf.

21

Monolithic, 2015 WL 5948159, at *3 (to obtain discovery, “the plaintiff must ‘articulate how the

22

unknown accused products share the same, or substantially the same, infringing structure’ with a

23

named product”) (quoting Infineon, 2012 WL 6184394, at *3); Mediatek, 2013 WL 588760, at *2

24
25
26
27

Aavid’s discovery requests do not define these terms, and Cooling Master argues that the meanings
of terms are likely to be disputed during claim construction. Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 49 at 7.
9

See Joint Status Update Letter – ECF No. 52 at 2 n.1. Cooler Master further asserts that all of the
asserted claims also require, among other things, a “boundary structure,” a “circumferential edge lip
bounding an inner surface,” or an “edge lip that bounds a top surface and a bottom surface.” Id. at 5.
10

28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

5

1

(“To require [defendant] to produce voluminous discovery related to every product which

2

[defendant] determines contains any particular feature eviscerates the goal of the Patent Local

3

Rules to streamline discovery by requiring the party claiming infringement to identify with

4

particularity how each accused product infringes the patents-in-suit.”).

5
6
7

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Aavid’s motion to compel.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2018
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

6