Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. Rayvio Corporation

Filing 52

ORDER ON 48 JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 12/14/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTORS CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

RAYVIO CORPORATION,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-02952-EJD (SVK)
ORDER ON JOINT STATEMENT
REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES
Re: Dkt. No. 48

Before the Court is the parties’ joint statement regarding Plaintiff’s request to compel

12
13

Defendant to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11. ECF 48.

14

Plaintiff contends that these interrogatories request basic factual information that Defendant

15

should be required to provide now. Defendant argues that the interrogatories are premature

16

contention interrogatories. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this issue

17

appropriate for determination without oral argument. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s

18

motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff raising these issues again later in

19

discovery.

20

I.

21

BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that certain of Defendant’s products

22

infringe Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 6,861,270. ECF 1. Fact discovery has been underway for four

23

months, but according to Defendant, document production is in its early stages, and no depositions

24

have been taken. ECF 48 at 1, 3. Fact discovery will close on June 28, 2018. ECF 37. Claim

25

construction proceedings are also underway. The parties have exchanged proposed terms for

26

construction and proposed constructions, and a claim construction hearing is scheduled for

27

April 19, 2018. Id.

28

The interrogatories that are the subject of the current dispute ask Defendant to provide the

1

following information:

2



For each epitaxial process or structure identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1,

3

“identify[] the light-emitting region” and describe “any variation in elemental

4

composition or spatial fluctuation in the band gap in the light emitting region or

5

layer(s) in direct contact with the light emitting region.” (Interrogatory Nos. 2 and

6

3.)


7

Defendant’s non-infringement defense. (Interrogatory No. 7.)

8


9

Identify whether and how “any difference(s) between or among the Accused
Products supports any defense.” (Interrogatory No. 8.)

10


11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

“Fully describe all factual and legal bases for any contention” underlying

Describe the factual basis for any “conten[tion] that the techniques discussed in

12

U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0103289 … which are cited in the Complaint in

13

this case are not representative of the techniques by which the Accused Products

14

are manufactured.” (Interrogatory No. 10.)


15

structured identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1.” (Interrogatory No. 11.)

16

Defendant responded in part to these interrogatories but also objected to them as premature

17
18

“Describe in detail all differences between and among the epitaxial processes or

insofar as they sought Defendant’s contentions, claim constructions, and/or expert opinions.

19

In the parties’ exchange of claim terms for construction, Defendant has taken the position

20

that several of the terms used in these interrogatories or similar terms—including “light emitting

21

layer,” “a spatial fluctuation in the band gap,” “variation in the compositional ratio,” and “a

22

special fluctuation … in the band gap”—require construction.

23

II.

24

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 permits interrogatories to parties regarding their factual

25

contentions, but also provides that the Court may postpone answers to such interrogatories “until

26

designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.” Fed. R. Civ.

27

Proc. 33(a)(2). An interrogatory “is not objectionable merely because it asks for contentions that

28

relate to fact or the application of law to fact.” In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-1882 JF
2

1

(RS), 2008 WL 5212170, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008). However, “courts tend to deny

2

contention interrogatories filed before substantial discovery has taken place.” Id.
Courts in this district require a party moving to compel responses to contention

3
4

interrogatories at an early stage in litigation to show that the responses would “contribute

5

meaningfully” to one of the following: (1) clarifying the issues in the case; (2) narrowing the

6

scope of the dispute; (3) setting up early settlement discussion; or (4) exposing a substantial basis

7

for a motion under Rule 11 or Rule 56. See In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328,

8

337 (N.D. Cal. 1985).
Plaintiff does not acknowledge or address these factors. Plaintiff argues that Defendant

9

could provide more information about the accused products at issue, but does not explain why

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

requiring a response to the disputed interrogatories now (as opposed to later in discovery) would

12

contribute meaningfully to any of the interests identified in In re Convergent Technologies. The

13

mere prospect that information the Defendant may provide now would make discovery easier is

14

not a sufficient basis for requiring the Defendant to respond to contention interrogatories before

15

substantial discovery has taken place. See Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C 11-02709

16

EMC (LB), 2013 WL 655023, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2013) (denying motion to compel responses

17

to contention interrogatories at early stage of litigation). Moreover, the fact that several of the

18

interrogatories use terms that will be addressed by the District Judge during claim construction is

19

another reason that requiring Defendant to provide additional responses at this time would be of

20

questionable value. See Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 14-CV-04741-RS(MEJ), 2016 WL

21

913105, at *3 (N.D. Cal. March 10, 2016) (denying motion to compel responses to interrogatories

22

containing terms that were the subject of claim construction proceedings that were served before

23

claim construction and before substantial discovery had been conducted).
Accordingly, the Court will not require Defendant to provide further responses at this stage

24
25

of the case.

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide more

3

complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11 is DENIED without prejudice to

4

Plaintiff raising these issues again later in the case.

5
6

SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 14, 2017

7
8
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

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
4