Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc. et al

Filing 472

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS (GERMANY), re 460 -1. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 12/19/2014. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Shawn E. McDonald (State Bar No. 237580)
Adrienne Hunacek Miller (State Bar No. 274660)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
EMAIL: [e-mail]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
975 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1013
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Nancy L. Stagg (State Bar No. 157034)
Ary Chang (State Bar No. 244247)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
EMAIL: [e-mail]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
John C. Vetter (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
EMAIL: [e-mail]
Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Richard S. Florsheim (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
EMAIL: [e-mail]
777 E Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5306
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S. INC.,
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES TRADING LTD., AND
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE. LTD.

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

SAN JOSE DIVISION

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S. INC.,
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP
(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., AVAGO
TECHNOLOGIES TRADING LTD., AND
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES
INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE. LTD.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 5:10-CV-02863-EJD (PSG)
REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO
THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH
1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN
CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS
Honorable Paul S. Grewal

v.
IPTRONICS INC., MELLANOX
TECHNOLOGIES DENMARK APS (f/k/a
IPTRONICS A/S),
Defendants.

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD (PSG)
4839-0505-3982.1

1

1.

The Honorable Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
San Jose Division
280 South 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95113
United States of America

2
3
4
5
6
7

2.

9
10
11
12

14

3.

16
17
18
19

21
22
23
24
25

Person to Whom the Executed Request Is to Be Returned
Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh
Rechtsanwalt
Attorney-at-Law
Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Siebertstrasse 3
81675 München
Germany
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

15

20

Central Authority of the Requested State
Der Präsident
des Amtsgerichts Freiburg
Holzmarkt 2
79098 Freiburg
Germany
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Website: www.amtsgericht-freiburg.de

8

13

Sender

4.

Specification of the Date by Which the Requesting Authority Requires Receipt
of the Response to the Letter Request
By December 31, 2014, or as soon as reasonably practicable. The U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California has scheduled a procedural hearing on
February 5, 2015, for which the parties need to file a statement by January 26, 2015.
The evidence cutoff date is March 2, 2015.

26
27
28

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1
2
3

IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, THE UNDERSIGNED
APPLICANT HAS THE HONOR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING REQUEST:
5.

4

a.

Requesting Judicial Authority (Art. 3(a))

United States District Court for the Northern District of California
San Jose Division
280 South 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95113
United States of America

5
6
7

b.

8

To the Competent Authority of (Art. 3(a))

The Central Authority of Germany

9
10

c.

11

Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics
A/S; Case Number 5:10-CV-02863 EJD (PSG), United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6.

Name of the Case and Any Identifying Number

Name and Addresses of the Parties and Their Representatives (Art. 3(b))
a.

Plaintiffs

Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
No. 1 Yishun Avenue 7
Singapore 768923
Singapore
Telephone: [phone]
Avago Technologies U.S. Inc.
350 West Trimble Road, Building 90
San Jose CA 95131
USA
Telephone: [phone]
Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD.
1 Yishun Avenue 7
Singapore, 768923
Singapore
Telephone: [phone]
Avago Technologies Trading LTD.
4th Floor, IBL House
Caudan
Port Louis
Mauritius
1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD

4839-0505-3982.1

1
2
3
4

Avago Technologies International Sales PTE. LTD.
1 Yishun Avenue 7
Singapore, 768923
Singapore
Telephone: [phone]

5

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

6

John C. Vetter
Foley & Lardner LLP
One South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
Miami, FL 33151
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Ary Chang
3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh
Rechtsanwalt
Attorney-at-Law
Vossius & Partner
Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Siebertstrasse 3
81675 München
Germany
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Dr. Thure Schubert
Rechtsanwalt
Attorney-at-Law
Vossius & Partner
Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Siebertstrasse 3
81675 München
Germany
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

27

b.

28

IPtronics, Inc.

Defendants
1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1370 Willow Road
2nd Floor
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: [phone]

1
2
3

Mellanox Technologies Denmark ApS
Ledreborg Allé 130B
DK-4000 Roskilde
Denmark
Telephone: [phone]

4
5
6
7

Counsel for the Defendants

8

Steven D. Hemminger
Xavier Brandwajn
Alston & Bird LLP
1950 University Avenue, 5th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

9
10
11
12
13

Brian Parker Miller
Alston & Bird LLP
1201 W Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Email: [e-mail]

14
15
16

Thomas W. Davison
Alston & Bird LLP
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1404
Email: [e-mail]

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

7.

a.

Nature of the Proceedings (Art. 3(c))

This is a civil action with claims arising in part under the Patent Laws of the United States,
35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and, in particular, 35 U.S.C. § 271; under the Trademark Act of 1946, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1141 (the “Lanham Act”), and in particular 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43(a)
of the Lanham Act); and under the State of California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act §§3426 et seq.
b.

Summary of the Complaint (Art. 3(c))

On June 29, 2010, Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (“Avago Fiber IP”)
filed a Complaint against IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics A/S (collectively, “IPtronics”).
1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1

On September 18, 2012, Avago Fiber IP filed its Second Amended and Supplemental

2

(“SASC”) complaint to join Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (“Avago US”), Avago Technologies

3

General IP (“Avago General IP”), Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. (“Avago

4

Sales”), and Avago Technologies Trading Ltd. (“Avago Trading”) (collectively, “Avago

5

Licensees”), which have exclusive rights in the patents-in-suit to this action. The SASC included

6

the original allegations that IPtronics (i) contributorily infringed and actively induced infringement

7

of one or more claims of United States Patent No. 5,359,447, which Avago Fiber IP owns, and (ii)

8

directly infringed, contributorily infringed, and actively induced infringement of one or more claims

9

of United States Patent No. 6,947,456, which Avago Fiber IP owns. The SASC also added factual

10

allegations and related claims against IPtronics for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43(a) of the

11

Lanham Act), misappropriation of trade secrets under the State of California’s Uniform Trade

12

Secrets Act §§ 3426 et seq., and unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practices under

13

California Business & Professional Code § 17200.

14
15

Effective October 29, 2012, Avago Fiber IP transferred ownership of the patents-in-suit to
Avago General IP, and Avago Fiber IP ceased to exist.

16

On July 1, 2013, Mellanox Technologies Ltd. acquired defendant IPtronics A/S, now known

17

as Mellanox Technologies Denmark ApS, which becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of Mellanox

18

Technologies Ltd.

19

c.

Summary of Defense (Art. 3(c))

20

IPtronics has denied Avago’s allegations and asserted counterclaims against Avago,

21

including declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of Avago’s patents, breach of

22

contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and other business tort claims.

23
24
25
26
27
28

8.

a.

Evidence to Be Obtained (Art. 3(d))

The evidence to be obtained is for use at trial in the action of Avago Technologies Fiber IP
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics A/S; Case Number 5:10-CV-02863 EJD (PSG),
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and includes (i) oral testimony
from Dr. Martin Grabherr, Senior Manager Sales & Marketing at Philips Technologie GmbH, U-L1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1

M Photonics (“ULM”), or his successor in the company, (ii) oral testimony from Mr. Roger King,

2

Senior Manager of Research and Development at ULM, or his successor in the company and (iii)

3

documents from ULM. Schedule A, attached as Exhibit 1 hereto, sets forth a list of questions to be

4

asked of the witnesses and the documents sought. As Schedule A reflects, the evidence sought is

5

limited, relating to the “aperture” on vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (“VCSELs”) ULM

6

manufactures and supplies to the United States, and ULM’s electronic modeling of such products.

7

A previous Letter of Request to the Central Authority of Germany (“Central Authority”) for

8

International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking

9

of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Letter Request”) was issued by the

10

Requesting Authority on September 18, 2012, and the original executed copy sent soon thereafter.

11

On December 6, 2012, the Central Authority requested clarification with respect to certain sections

12

in the Letter Request.

13

Supplemental Request for International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention of 18

14

March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Supplemental

15

Letter Request”) to provide the requested clarification. On February 8, 2013, the Requesting

16

Authority issued a Supplemental Letter Request.

17

executed Supplemental Letter Request could be sent to the Central Authority, this case was stayed.

18

The case was reopened on July 23, 2014.

On January 2, 2013, Avago filed an Application for the Issuance of

On February 15, 2013, before the original

19

The September 18, 2012 Letter Request is being withdrawn and the Amended Letter Request

20

for International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the

21

Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Amended Letter Request”) sent to the

22

Central Authority.

23

b.

Purpose of the Evidence to Be Obtained (Art. 3(d))

24

Avago seeks evidence from Dr. Martin Grabherr (or his successor in the company) and

25

Mr. Roger King (or his successor in the company), and ULM in connection with its allegations that

26

IPtronics has contributorily infringed and actively induced infringement of one or more claims of

27
28

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1

United States Patent Nos. 5,359,447 (the “‘447 Patent”) and 6,947,456 (the “’456 Patent”), and

2

directly infringed one or more claims of the ‘456 Patent.

3

Evidence to show infringement of the ‘447 patent

4

In general terms, the ‘447 Patent covers the invention of an optical communication system

5

having a VCSEL. A multi-mode optical medium such as an optical fiber is coupled to the VCSEL.

6

A power supply provides a bias current that drives the VCSEL into multiple transverse mode

7

operation, preferably in more than two distinct modes. The VCSEL generates a beam of light that

8

has a lower coherence than that provided by a single-mode laser. This beam of light is modulated

9

with data carried by an incoming signal. The VCSEL preferably has an “aperture” larger than about

10

eight (8) micrometers (microns) through which the modulated light beam is emitted. A true and

11

correct copy of the ‘447 Patent, which includes a more detailed description of the invention covered,

12

is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

13

In its Complaint, Avago alleges that IPtronics has marketed and sold in the United States

14

various driver circuits for VCSELs and components for use in optical communication networks.

15

IPtronics issues publications providing instructions for how to couple these products with VCSELs

16

and an optical coupling medium to provide an optical communication network. Avago has alleged

17

that such optical communication networks infringe the ‘447 Patent. Specifically, if the optical

18

communication network resulting from the coupling process uses a VCSEL with an aperture that

19

has a diameter of at least 8 microns, then this optical communication network literally infringes the

20

‘447 Patent. If the optical communication network resulting from the coupling process uses a

21

VCSEL with an aperture that has a diameter of 8 microns or less, then this optical communication

22

network infringes the ‘447 Patent by the doctrine of equivalents.

23

Upon information and belief, the optical communication networks comprised of products

24

from IPtronics utilize VCSELs manufactured by ULM Photonics, as taught by IPtronics. A publicly

25

available document released by IPtronics, entitled “Reference Design,” instructs customers how to

26

use ULM’s VCSELs with IPtronics’ products. A copy of the “Reference Design” document is

27

attached hereto as Exhibit 3. In order to determine whether the optical communication networks

28

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1

implicated by the lawsuit literally infringe the ‘447 Patent, or infringe by the doctrine of equivalents,

2

it is necessary to determine the diameter of the aperture on ULM’s VCSELs.

3

“Aperture” is a term used by persons of skill in the art to refer to the unoxidized portion of a

4

layer in a VCSEL that confines current flow, and thus the path of the light emitted by the active

5

region of a VCSEL. A VCSEL consists of many layers of semiconductor material grown or formed

6

parallel to a substrate. The composition and thicknesses of the various VCSEL layers are specified

7

by an epitaxial recipe. An active region, where light is generated, is located among layers near the

8

VCSEL center. The active region lies between upper and lower mirror stacks. Metal contacts are

9

provided on the top and bottom of the VCSEL so that electrical current can pass through it, and

10

stimulate the electrons of atoms located in the active region so that light can be generated. There are

11

several techniques used to confine this current flow to the desired area of the active region. ULM’s

12

VCSELs are “oxide confined,” as are many commercial embodiments. The upper and lower mirrors

13

of the VCSELs are made of AlGaAs layers having an optical thickness of 1/4 wavelength of the

14

emitted light. In an oxide confined VCSEL, one of the AlGaAs layers has a higher aluminum

15

content than all of the other layers. When the VCSEL is subjected to heat and steam, the aluminum

16

oxidizes from the outside in. Oxidation is continued until the unoxidized portion in the high

17

aluminum content layer is of the desired dimension. The dimension of this unoxidized portion is

18

what is known as the “aperture” of the VCSEL.

19

Aperture dimensions can have a range of acceptable values or tolerances. The range of

20

tolerances is caused by acceptable variations in material composition, temperature, properties of the

21

steam, and dimensional tolerances of the VCSEL structure itself. Oxidation of the high AlGaAs

22

layer is a physical process of limited precision. Based on these tolerances and other considerations,

23

manufacturers develop an acceptable range of values for their apertures in which the VCSELs will

24

perform satisfactorily. That range may well be over 10% to 15% of the aperture dimension. For

25

example, if a target aperture is 7.8 microns, an acceptable tolerance may be close to 9 microns.

26

The evidence sought by Avago through this Letter Request includes the target values and

27

acceptable range of values for the apertures in certain ULM VCSEL products. This information will

28

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1

aid in determining whether and in what manner the optical communication networks using products

2

from IPtronics infringe Avago’s ‘447 Patent.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Evidence to show infringement of the ‘456 patent
In general terms, the ‘456 Patent pertains to laser driver circuits and optical transmitters
containing them, that are used to control arrays of VCSELs for high-speed optical data transmission.
More specifically, they may be used to “drive” VCSELs in a VCSEL array with respective drive
waveforms (also called drive currents or drive current waveforms) that represent the incoming data
stream. The inventions of the asserted claims of the ‘456 patent include “negative peaking” of the
electrical signal, which refers to a transient present in the drive waveform during, and sometimes
after, the transition from a “high” or “logic 1” level of the electrical drive waveform down to the
“low” or “logic 0” of the waveform. An electronic model of the electrical properties of a VCSEL is
useful for modeling the behavior of the electrical circuit in which the VCSEL operates. The
evidence sought from ULM relating to its electronic models for its VCSELs, related bond wires, and
other parasitic circuit elements, will be useful for modeling the electrical behavior of those of the
accused products that contain an ULM VCSEL as a part of the proof that such products infringe the
‘456 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘456 Patent, which includes a more detailed description
of the invention covered, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
9.

Identity of Persons to be Examined (Art. 3(e))

Based upon information available from ULM Photonics’ web site, Avago believes one or
both of the following ULM employees, and ULM as a corporate entity, may have the requisite
knowledge:
Dr. Martin Grabherr (or his successor within the company)
Senior Manager, Sales & Marketing
Philips Technologie GmbH
U-L-M Photonics
Lise-Meitner str. 13
d-89081 Ulm
Germany
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. Roger King (or his successor within the company)
1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD

4839-0505-3982.1

1
2
3
4

Senior Manager of Research and Development
Philips Technologie GmbH
U-L-M Photonics
Lise-Meitner str. 13
d-89081 Ulm
Germany
Telephone: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Alternatively
An officer, director or managing agent, or any other person who consents to testify on
ULM’s behalf concerning the matters and questions set forth in Schedule A, to be designated
by:
Philips Technologie GmbH
U-L-M Photonics
Lise-Meitner str. 13
d-89081 Ulm
Germany
Telephone: [phone]

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1

10.

2

A list of questions to be asked of the witnesses is set forth on Schedule A, annexed hereto.

3

11.

4
5
6
7
8

Questions to be Put to the Persons to be Examined or Statement of the SubjectMatter About Which They are to be Examined (Art. 3(f))

Documents or Other Property to be Inspected (Art. 3(g))

The documents to be inspected are set forth on Schedule A, attached. Should ULM fail to
produce these documents, it is requested that the Court conducting the taking of evidence requests
the production of documents according to § 142 ZPO and, if necessary, applies compulsory
measures according to § 390 ZPO.
12.

9

Requirement That the Evidence be Given on Oath or Affirmation (Art. 3(h))

The witnesses should be examined under oath or affirmation.

10
11

13.

12

This Letter Request includes the following requests:

13

Special Methods or Procedures to be Followed (Art. 3(i) and 9)



That this Letter Request be granted and the evidence-taking proceeding be performed
on an expedited basis because the fact discovery cut off in the underlying case is on
March 2, 2015;



That attorneys for the Plaintiff, and, if the Defendants so choose, attorneys for the
Defendants be permitted to ask the witnesses additional questions that are related to those
questions set forth in Schedule A;



That an authorized shorthand writer/court reporter be present at the examination who shall
record the oral testimony verbatim (in English) and prepare a transcript of the evidence;



That an authorized shorthand writer/court reporter be present at the examination who shall
record the oral testimony verbatim (in German) and prepare a transcript of the evidence;



That an authorized interpreter be present at the examination who shall translate the questions
and oral testimony between German and English;



That the examinations take place at dates and times as may be agreed upon between the
witnesses and counsel for the parties;



That, to the extent that multiple hearing dates are necessary to complete all the questions in
Schedule A and the additional questions related to those questions set forth in Schedule A,
the hearings are scheduled on consecutive days or as close to each other as reasonably
practicable;

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1



That, to the extent the individual witnesses identified in Section 9 of this Letter Request do
not have sufficient knowledge to testify as to the matters and questions set forth in Schedule
A, ULM, as a corporate entity, be required in accordance with established means of practice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to provide testimony by designating one or
more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on
ULM’s behalf concerning the matters and questions set forth in Schedule A; and



7

That all evidence be obtained in a manner compliant with the Stipulated Protective Order,
attached as Exhibit 4 and entered by the Honorable Paul S. Grewal on May 2, 2011 in the
action of Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics
A/S; Case Number 5:10-CV-02863 EJD (PSG), United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

8

In the event the evidence cannot be taken in the manner or location requested, it is to be taken in

9

such a manner or location as provided by local law. To the extent any request in this section is

1
2
3
4
5
6

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

deemed incompatible with German principles of procedural law, it is to be disregarded.
14.

Request for Notification of the Time and Place for the Execution of the Request
and Identity and Address of Any Person to be Notified (Art. 7)

Please notify the following counsel regarding the time and place for the execution of the
Letter Request:
John C Vetter
Foley & Lardner LLP
One South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
Miami, FL 33151
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Ary Chang
3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh
Rechtsanwalt
Attorney-at-Law
Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Siebertstrasse 3
81675 München
Germany
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Dr. Thure Schubert
Rechtsanwalt
Attorney-at-Law
Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Siebertstrasse 3
81675 München
Germany
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Steven D. Hemminger
Xavier Brandwajn
Alston & Bird LLP
1950 University Avenue, 5th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Brian Parker Miller
Alston & Bird LLP
1201 W Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Email: [e-mail]
Thomas W. Davison
Alston & Bird LLP
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1404
Email: [e-mail]
15.

Request for Attendance of Participation of Judicial Personnel of the Requesting
Authority at the Execution of the Letter Request (Art. 8)

20

No attendance of judicial personnel is requested.

21

16.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Specification of Privilege or Duty to Refuse to Give Evidence Under the Law of
the State of Origin (Art. 11(b))

The privilege or duty of the witnesses to refuse to give evidence shall be the same as if they
were testifying under the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including if
giving such evidence would (1) subject them to a real and appreciable danger of criminal liability in
the United States, or (2) disclose a confidential and privileged communication between them and
their respective attorneys.

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1

1
2
3
4
5

17.

Fees and Costs (Art. 14 and 26)

Fees and costs incurred which are reimbursable under the Hague Convention shall be borne
by Foley & Lardner LLP, One South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900, Miami, Florida 33151.

Date of Request:

December 19, 2014

6
7
8
9

Signature and Seal of
Requesting Authority

_______________________________
Honorable Paul S. Grewal

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD
4839-0505-3982.1