Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 273

RESPONSE (re 209 MOTION to Compel Apple to Supplement Its Response to Elan's Interrogatory No. 13 ) PUBLIC VERSION filed byApple, Inc.. (Greenblatt, Nathan) (Filed on 6/9/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) matthew.powers@weil.com JARED BOBROW (Bar No. 133712) jared.bobrow@weil.com SONAL N. MEHTA (Bar No. 222086) sonal.mehta@weil.com DEREK C. WALTER (Bar. No. 246322) derek.walter@weil.com NATHAN GREENBLATT (Bar No. 262279) nathan.greenblatt@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 9 10 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 15 ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, 16 17 18 19 20 v. Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG) APPLE INC.’S RESPONSE TO ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO SUPPLEMENT ITS RESPONSE TO ELAN'S INTERROGATORY NO. 13 APPLE INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. 21 DATE: June 28, 2011 TIME: 10:00 a.m. JUDGE: Hon. Paul S. Grewal CTRM: 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S RESPONSE TO ELAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG) 1 Elan Microelectronics Corp. (“Elan”) moves to compel Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to 2 supplement its response to Elan Interrogatory No. 13, which seeks inter alia information related 3 to codenames and labels used to identify Apple products. See Dkt. No. 209. Apple has already 4 provided extensive information in response to this Interrogatory. 5 separately for each accused product, Apple has already identified relevant internal Apple 6 codenames, product names, model identification numbers, model numbers, and order numbers, 7 and has identified on a per product basis the relevant chipsets they use. 8 information is more than Elan needs to pursue its case. Nevertheless, by its motion, Elan seeks to 9 compel Apple to go to the burdensome task of providing a table that further correlates the internal 10 engineering code names with the most granular level of Apple product number, which carries 11 with it information regarding the configuration of the product at issue that is completely 12 unrelated to the issues in this case (e.g., the size of a laptop, the amount of memory it has, its 13 color, etc.). This is the only information that Apple has not provided and that Elan seeks with its 14 motion, and, as set forth below, it is entirely irrelevant to this case. Nevertheless, to avoid 15 troubling the Court, Apple has agreed to undertake a special investigation to collect and verify 16 how internal development codenames correlate to these granular external order numbers. To the 17 extent there is any correlation and to the extent Apple is able to verify the correlation, Apple will 18 supplement its interrogatory response by June 22, 2011 to provide the information that Elan 19 seeks. Elan’s motion is thus moot. There is no dispute that The foregoing 20 Despite the mootness of Elan’s motion, Apple provides the following explanation of the 21 full scope of the information it has already provided to Elan and precisely why the additional 22 information Elan seeks is irrelevant, should the Court wish to consider the relevant history. At 23 the outset, Apple has collected and organized into tabular form model ID numbers, model 24 numbers, and order numbers for 79 different accused Apple products—including 21 flavors of 25 MacBook and 35 flavors of MacBook Pro. See Rathinasamy Decl., Exh. F [Apple’s Supp. Resp.] 26 at 5-7. 27 directed Elan by Bates number to documents that state the relevant types of touchpad ASICs they 28 contain. Because these ASICs are the devices that actually store and execute the allegedly Additionally, for eleven different categories of Apple accused products, Apple has APPLE’S RESPONSE TO ELAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: INTERROGATORY NO. 13 1 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG) 1 infringing functionality, this represents the core hardware information Elan needs to pursue its 2 case. See Exh. 1 [Apple’s 10/28 Response to Elan ITC Interrogatory No. 31] at 11-12.1 In 3 addition, as noted above, Apple has specified for the internal engineering code names, the type of 4 products they correspond to. For instance, for the accused MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook 5 Pro, iPhone 3G/3GS, iPod Touch, iPad, iPhone, and Magic Trackpad products, Apple identified 6 total internal codenames and verified with an Apple employee the corresponding product they 7 were associated with, as set forth in the table below: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 See Exh. 2 [Apple 11/02/2010 Response to Elan ITC Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 19 1] at 8; see also id. at 32 (verification of Apple employee Stan Ng). Apple provided similar 20 information for the accused iBook and PowerBook G4 products as well. See Rathinasamy Decl., 21 Exh. B [Apple’s Resp.] at 5. Elan has never identified to Apple a particular internal codename 22 that it was unable to associate with an Apple product, or a particular Apple product for which it 23 was unable to determine the type of ASIC it contains. 24 Despite having provided this information, Elan insists that Apple provide it with further 25 information to correlate the internal engineering codes above with the most granular level of final 26 product model number, which represents the final configuration of the product, including details 27 28 1 All exhibits cites are to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Derek Walter in Support of Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Elan Microelectronics Corporation’s Motion to Compel Apple to Supplement its Response to Elan’s Interrogatory No. 13, filed concurrently herewith. APPLE’S RESPONSE TO ELAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: INTERROGATORY NO. 13 2 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG) 1 like its memory capacity, color, data carrier, etc. This information is irrelevant, as reflected in 2 the minimal explanation Elan provides in its brief regarding why it allegedly needs such 3 information.2 4 understand and analyze the documents Apple has produced.” Motion at 6. On this issue, Elan 5 states, at most, that this information is necessary for “tying externally described features with 6 internal product numbers.” Id. Yet, Elan does not state what features it allegedly needs to tie to 7 internal product numbers. Elan identifies no such features because there are none; Elan needs to 8 know little more than the type of touch ASIC each product contains, which Apple has already 9 provided. Indeed, Elan even proclaims in its brief that “under the current state of affairs, Elan 10 has the information necessary to prove infringement by the accused Apple products.” Id. at 7. 11 Next, Elan contends that the information it seeks is necessary to prove damages, because its 12 infringement “proof would apply to the products listed under the internal project codes” and 13 cannot be tied to external product codes. Id. at 7. But, as noted above, Apple has already told 14 Elan whether a particular internal project codename corresponds to a MacBook Pro, iPad, iPhone, 15 etc., and there is nothing about Elan’s infringement case that should require further information 16 beyond the type of touch ASIC each product contains, which Apple has already provided, let 17 alone information about the size or color of the product. Moreover, in connection with damages 18 discovery, Apple will provide full financial information for the different configurations of these 19 products, a point Apple would have explained had Elan ever articulated during the meet and 20 confer process any relevance justification related to damages. Simply put, Elan’s position is 21 based on a false and ill-informed presumption that to have complete financial information for the 22 accused Apple products, it will need to correlate internal project codenames to the most granular 23 level of Apple product number. Elan is simply wrong on this point. First, Elan contends that the information is necessary so that it can “fully 24 Importantly, the information Elan seeks is not kept or generated by Apple in the ordinary 25 course of business because, as Elan acknowledges, the codenames are internal engineering 26 2 27 28 Elan seeks this sort of irrelevant information while it at the same time withholds from Apple critical information necessary to its case, including information regarding the presence of Elan products in the United States, inventor depositions, and certain documents that have been improperly redacted on the basis of privilege, as explained fully in Apple’s May 31, 2011 motion to compel. APPLE’S RESPONSE TO ELAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: INTERROGATORY NO. 13 3 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG) 1 designations while the granular model numbers are marketing designations. See Motion at 4-5. 2 Indeed, in some cases, there may be no correlation at all between internal engineering 3 designations and external model numbers. As such, the information truly is burdensome to 4 collect and review for accuracy, and Apple has therefore repeatedly requested that Elan explain 5 the relevance of the information to assess whether the burden in generating it outweighs its likely 6 benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) (“On motion or on its own, the court must limit the 7 frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines 8 that . . . the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit . . .”). 9 Unfortunately, as set forth above, despite repeated attempts by Apple to meet and confer on the 10 relevance of the requested information, Elan never truly engaged on this issue, choosing instead 11 to simply file a motion to compel. Despite these circumstances, in the interest of conserving the 12 resources of both the parties and the Court, Apple will undertake the effort to identify for Elan the 13 information it seeks by June 22, 2011. 14 15 Dated: June 7, 2011 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 16 17 By: 18 19 /s/ Sonal N. Mehta Sonal N. Mehta Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S RESPONSE TO ELAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: INTERROGATORY NO. 13 4 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?