Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting in part and denying in part #1 Motion to Compel. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BISCOTTI INC.,

Case No. 17-mc-80010-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO
COMPEL

9
10

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On January 13, 2017, Petitioner Biscotti Inc. filed a motion to compel compliance with a

14

subpoena issued against Respondent Twitch Interactive, Inc. (Pet.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 1.) The

15

subpoena was issued in connection with Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-1015-

16

JRG-RSP, a patent infringement case currently pending in the Eastern District of Texas. (See

17

Alper Dec., Exh. 2, Dkt. No. 1.) The Court deems the matter suitable for disposition without

18

hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Having considered the papers filed by the parties and

19

the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to

20

compel, for the reasons set forth below.

21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner owns Patent No. 8,144,182 ('182 patent), which "relates to a video

23

communication system, which, at a high level, permits video communication between multiple

24

video communication devices." (Pet.'s Mot. at 5; Alper Dec., Exh. 1.) Petitioner filed a lawsuit

25

against Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), alleging that Microsoft's Xbox One and Xbox One S

26

gaming consoles (collectively, "Xbox One Systems") infringe on the '182 patent. (Pet.'s Mot. at

27

5.) Respondent developed the "Twitch" application; after a player installs the Twitch application

28

to an Xbox One System, the player can "broadcast his or her gamestream, including a video of

1

himself or herself--captured by a component of the Xbox One Systems called the Kinect--to third

2

parties interested in watching that gamestream." (Id.) When installed on a Xbox One System, the

3

Twitch "application and related infrastructure . . . comprise[] an important part of a system that

4

infringes the '182 patent." (Id. at 5-6.)
On November 1, 2016, Petitioner served Respondent with a subpoena, which included ten

5
6

document requests and twelve topics for deposition. At issue are the following:

7

Request No. 9:

8

10

All Documents and things related to: (i) financial data, projections,
or estimates of the value of the game streaming market; and (ii)
Twitch's market share of the game streaming market relative to its
competitors, including without limitation Beam.pro, YouTube
Gaming, Azubu, Dingit, and Hitbox.

11

Request No. 10:

12

All Documents and things related to the Twitch functionality
permitting broadcasting of video from a video capture device,
including without limitation web cameras, PlayStation Camera, and
Kinect, the decision to include this functionality in Twitch, and any
documents relating to the value of the functionality to Twitch
broadcasters or viewers.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

13
14
15

Topic No. 11:

16

18

Financial data, projections, or estimates of the value of the game
streaming market, and Twitch's market share of the game streaming
market relative to its competitors, including without limitation
Beam.pro, YouTube Gaming, Azubu, Dingit, and Hitbox.

19

Topic No. 12:

20

The Twitch functionality permitting broadcasting of video from a
video capture device, including without limitation web cameras,
PlayStation Camera, and Kinect, the decision to include this
functionality in Twitch, and the value of the functionality to Twitch
broadcasters or viewers.

17

21
22
23

(Alper Decl., Exh. 2 at 7, 9.)1

24
1

25
26
27
28

Petitioner's motion also concerns Deposition Topic No. 3, which related to "Features,
functionality, and operation of any version of the Twitch application compatible with Microsoft
Corporation's Xbox 360, Xbox One, and Xbox One S." (Alper Decl., Exh. 2 at 8.) On the same
day the instant motion was filed, Respondent agreed to provide testimony in response via either a
declaration or a four-hour deposition. (Resp.'s Opp'n at 8, Dkt. No. 8.) In its reply, Petitioner
confirmed this production, and that the "remaining . . . issue[s] in this motion are two 'nontechnical' document requests and two related 'non-technical' topics for deposition testimony."
(Pet.'s Reply at 1, Dkt. No. 15.)
2

1

Respondent answered these discovery requests with objections, including that the requests:

2

(1) were "overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks '[a]ll Documents and things,'" (2)

3

"call[ed] for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in the underlying action or not

4

reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," (3) were "not proportional to

5

the needs of the case, and the burden or expense of discovery sought outweighs its likely benefit."

6

(Pet.'s Mot. at 7-10.) The parties then conferred telephonically on November 21, 2016. (Shamilov

7

Decl. ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 8-1.) During this call, Petitioner stated that it was interested in receiving

8

documents in response to Request Nos. 3 (source code), 4 (file structure, software, or organization

9

of source code), and 5 (use statistics relating to the Twitch application). (Shamilov Decl. ¶ 8.)

10

The parties continued to meet and confer on the matter. The parties dispute, however,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

whether Petitioner raised Requests Nos. 9 and 10 and Topic Nos. 11 and 12 prior to January 10,

12

2017. Respondent contends that on January 10, 2017, Petitioner for the first time requested a non-

13

technical deposition on Topic Nos. 11 and 12, and that on January 11, 2017, "resurrected a request

14

that had been dormant since the parties' first telephonic conference in November: that it also

15

intended to seek non-technical documents subject to Request Nos. 9 and 10." (Resp.'s Opp'n at 4-

16

5.) Petitioner in turn points to Respondent's January 13, 2017 e-mail, which states Respondent

17

had explained "multiple times during [their] previous discussions, document requests 9 and 10 and

18

deposition topics 11 and 12 are overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportional to the issues in the case .

19

. . ." (Pet.'s Reply at 8, Dkt. No. 15; Shamilov Decl., Exh. 11.)

20

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery propounded by subpoena. The

22

scope of discovery that can be requested through a subpoena under Rule 45 is the same as the

23

scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee note

24

(1970) ("[T]he scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34

25

and the other discovery rules."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) ("A party may serve on any party a request

26

within the scope of Rule 26(b).").

27
28

Rule 26(b) permits discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). "Relevant information need not be admissible at trial
3

1

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

2

Id. The Court, however, may limit discovery if (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably

3

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

4

burdensome, or less expensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to

5

obtain the information sought, or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs

6

its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties'

7

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery

8

in resolving the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
III.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

A.

DISCUSSION

Relevance
i.

Document Request No. 9 and Deposition Topic No. 11

The parties dispute whether Petitioner's Document Request No. 9 and Deposition Topic

13

No. 11 are relevant to the underlying litigation. Document Request No. 9 and Deposition Topic

14

No. 11 seek information on "the value of the game streaming market and Twitch's market share in

15

the same." (Pet.'s Mot. at 12.)

16

Petitioner argues that these requests are relevant because "[t]he value Twitch places on its

17

game streaming technology, which forms part of Microsoft's infringement, relates to the value of

18

the technology claimed by the '182 patent and, thus, damages for Microsoft's infringement." (Id.)

19

Similarly, "Twitch's market share vis-á-vis its competitors, which do not all offer comparable

20

technology to Twitch (including its ability to capture the video of game player), provides a further

21

indication of the value of the '182 patented inventions." (Id.) Respondent counters that the value

22

of its technology to Respondent or its market share cannot be relevant to damages between

23

Petitioner and Microsoft, given that Petitioner's damages claim is against Microsoft, not

24

Respondent. (Resp.'s Opp'n at 9.) Further, Respondent contends that the request is overbroad

25

because it "seeks to compel information relating to the value of Twitch's technology worldwide

26

and across all platforms, which includes Twitch's primary platform (its website), as well as, for

27

example, iPhone, Android, Nvidia Shield, Chromecast, Fire TV, and PlayStation--none of which

28

are accused of infringement by Biscotti." (Id. at 10; see also Shamilov Decl., Exh. 12 (requesting
4

1

"documents and testimony discussing value of the game-streaming market and Twitch

2

functionality as a whole").) This is particularly the case when "only a tiny fraction of users view

3

Twitch content using an Xbox." (Resp.'s Opp'n at 10.)

4

The Court agrees with Petitioner that the value Respondent places on game streaming
technology and its market share indicates the value of the technology (which when used on the

6

Xbox One Systems, allegedly infringe on Petitioner's patent) in comparison to technologies that do

7

not infringe on Petitioner's patent. The value of this technology is relevant to Petitioner's

8

damages, as it shows what value Petitioner's patent adds to traditional game streaming. Thus, such

9

information goes to damages. The Court disagrees with Petitioner, however, that the value and

10

market share should be untethered from the Xbox One Systems. While Petitioner points out that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

the '182 patent can be infringed where video streams originating from Xbox One Systems are

12

viewed on other platforms, Petitioner does not otherwise explain the relevance of the value of

13

Respondent's technology across all platforms, regardless of whether the game streaming is viewed

14

on or originated from the Xbox One Systems. Therefore, the Court concludes that Document

15

Request No. 9 and Deposition Topic No. 11 must be limited to requested information relating to

16

the Xbox One Systems. This includes the value and market share that relate to both video streams

17

that are viewed on Xbox One Systems and video streams that originate from the Xbox One

18

Systems.

19
20

ii.

Document Request No. 10 and Deposition Topic No. 12

The parties dispute whether Petitioner's Document Request No. 10 and Deposition Topic

21

No. 12 are relevant to the underlying litigation. Document Request No. 10 and Deposition Topic

22

No. 12 seek information on "the Twitch functionality permitting broadcasting from a video

23

capture device, including without limitation web cameras, Playstation Camera, and Kinect, the

24

decision to include this functionality in Twitch, and any documents relating to the value of the

25

functionality to Twitch broadcasters or viewers."

26

Petitioner argues that such information "directly relate[s] to damages in this case." (Id.)

27

Further, "[Respondent's] decision to include the video-overlay features of its service and the value

28

of those features to its users underscores the value of the patented technology." (Pet.'s Reply at 4.)
5

1

Respondent replies that the value to itself and its users is irrelevant to damages because what is at

2

issue is the value of the functionality to Microsoft and Microsoft's users. (Resp.'s Opp'n at 9-10.)

3

Respondent also notes that it has already informed Petitioner that it "does not track or have data

4

reflecting the value of broadcasting with camera input, nor has it performed any analysis on the

5

subject." (Id. at 10.)
First, with respect to Respondent's decision to include the video-overlay, this goes to

6
7

Petitioner's calculation of damages as it explains why Respondent believed there was worth in

8

adding such a feature to the Twitch application. This worth goes to the value of the features to

9

Respondent's users, which in turn informs an estimate of damages to Petitioner for the

10

infringement.
Second, as to the value of the functionality, these requests are limited to the value of the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

functionality to broadcasters or viewers. Petitioner does not seek information relating to the actual

13

value that Respondent itself places on the functionality. This is consistent with the wording of

14

Request No. 10 and Topic No. 12, which seeks information "relating to the value of the

15

functionality to Twitch broadcasters or viewers." (Alper Decl., Exh. 2 at 7, 9.) Petitioner also

16

seems to disclaim interest in information relating to the value that Respondent places on the

17

functionality in its reply brief, stating that to the extent Respondent stated that the value of the

18

technology to Respondent is not relevant because Microsoft is accused of infringement,

19

"[Respondent] mischaracterizes [Petitioner's[ requests, which seek information on the 'value of the

20

functionality to Twitch broadcasters or viewers' not merely the value of '[Respondent's]

21

technology to [Respondent]." (Pet.'s Reply at 4; see also id. ("[Petitioner] simply seeks

22

information on the value this . . . technology provides to [Respondent's] users") (emphasis

23

added).2

24
2

25
26
27
28

The Court notes that Petitioner's statements in its reply brief are contrary to its opening brief,
where when explaining Request No. 10 and Topic No. 12, it stated that the value Respondent
places on the specific broadcasting functionality at issue "directly relate[s] to damages in this
case." (Pet.'s Mot. at 12.) In its reply brief, however, Petitioner focuses solely on the value of the
functionality to broadcasters or viewers, and characterizes Respondent's relevance arguments
about the value of the technology to Respondent itself as "a strawman." (Pet.'s Reply at 4-5.)
Accordingly, the Court takes Petitioner at its word and reviews Request No. 10 and Topic No. 12
as seeking only the value of the functionality to broadcasters or viewers, not to Respondent itself.
6

The Court finds that the information sought by Request No. 10 and Topic No. 12 is

1

relevant, to the extent it seeks information limited to the Xbox One Systems users and

3

broadcasters. The decision to include the functionality in the Twitch application is relevant to the

4

value of the technology. Further, as Petitioner points out, the users or broadcasters that are the

5

subject of this request "are also users of Microsoft's infringing Xbox One Systems," and "the value

6

placed on the Twitch video-overlay features by users of the Xbox One Systems is relevant to the

7

issues in the underlying litigation." (Pet.'s Reply at 5.) Again, however, these requests must be

8

limited only to users of Microsoft's infringing Xbox One Systems, as Petitioner does not explain

9

the relevance of the value of this functionality to non-Xbox One Systems users.3 Of course, to the

10

extent that Respondent does not have information or analysis regarding the value of broadcasting

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

with camera input, Respondent cannot be compelled to provide information or analysis that it does

12

not already possess. (See Resp.'s Opp'n at 10.)

13

B.

14

Respondent argues that the motion to compel should be denied because complying with the

Burden

15

disputed requests will require Respondent "to undertake a burdensome and time-consuming

16

analysis to quantify and aggregate the value of its technology across all platforms and all

17

streaming content." (Resp.'s Opp'n at 11.) The Court rejects this argument. First, as discussed

18

above, the Court finds that the information sought by the disputed requests must be limited only to

19

the Xbox One Systems, which reduces any such burden. Second, Respondent is required only to

20

provide information that is already in its possession, custody, or control; it is not required to create

21

new documents or perform new analyses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). Thus, again, if

22

Respondent does not have the information, it is not required to produce it.

23

C.

24

Respondent contends that the information sought could have been obtained from Microsoft

25

Other Source

or public sources. The Court disagrees, as the requests at issue concern the value to Respondent's

26
27
28

3

Presumably, there would be no value to such users as Petitioner only alleges that the Twitch
application infringes on Petitioner's patent when used on the Xbox One Systems, not on any other
system. (See Resp.'s Opp'n at 10.)
7

1

users and Respondent's market share, information that is not clearly available to anyone other than

2

Respondent. For example, while Respondent points to various articles that identify some market

3

shares, it is not limited to the Xbox One systems, which is what is relevant to the instant case.

4

Similarly, while Microsoft owns one live streaming service, this does not automatically mean that

5

Microsoft possesses information on Respondent's market share, relative to all other streaming

6

services including YouTube Gaming, Azubu, Dingit, and Hit-box. The Court therefore finds that

7

Respondent has not adequately shown that the information can be obtained from a party or a

8

public source.

9
10

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Petitioner's motion to compel. Although the Court finds that Respondent must respond to the

12

requests at issue, the requests are limited to the extent they relate to the Xbox One systems only.

13

Because the Court grants in part and denies in part the relief sought, the Court declines to award

14

attorney's fees to either of the parties.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: April 19, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8