Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 110

ORDER on 97 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute Regarding the Definition of "Accused Products" in Interrogatory No. 5. Court denies Largan's motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 5. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 4/3/2015. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
)
LTD., et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS.
_______________________________ )
I.

Civil No. 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REGARDING THE DEFINITION
OF “ACCUSED PRODUCTS” IN
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
(Dkt. No. 97)

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In this case, Plaintiff Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) alleges a patent

infringement action against Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (“Samsung”).
The technology at issue involves imaging lens products that are used in mobile phone
cameras. Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for
determination of discovery dispute regarding a discovery request Largan served on
Samsung (“Joint Motion”). (Dkt. No. 97.)1 The dispute relates to Largan’s Interrogatory
No. 5, or more specifically, the definition of “Accused Product” provided in conjunction
with Interrogatory No. 5. The parties met and conferred yet could not resolve their
dispute, so they filed the Joint Motion on March 19, 2015. (Dkt. No. 74.)

27
28

1

The Court has no need to cite to the sealed version of the Joint Motion, (Dkt. No.
106), and has been careful not to reference any confidential information in this Order.
1

13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the

2
3

parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” U.S. ex rel.

4

O’Connell v. Chapman University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (internal

5

quotation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) offers guidance as to the

6

scope of discovery permitted in an action:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense...Relevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.

7
8
9

“Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of

10
11

Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). However, “[t]he party seeking to compel

12

discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy

13

requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden

14

of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying,

15

explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1

16

(S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal citation omitted). District courts have broad discretion

17

when determining relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d

18

732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). However, this discretion should be balanced with the obligation

19

to interpret the Rules in order to secure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination”

20

of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. This Court has the power to restrict discovery when it is

21

necessary to prevent “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

22

expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Likewise, the Court will consider whether “the burden

23

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs

24

of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues

25

at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed.

26

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

27

III.

28

ANALYSIS
Largan’s Interrogatory No. 5 asks Samsung to identify certain information—e.g.,
2

13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

1

the model name, product number, supplier, cost, and camera location—for each “Accused

2

Product.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 7.) Largan defines “Accused Product” as follows:

3
4
5
6

[A]ny product that contains at least one camera module with a three or five
element imaging lens that Samsung has made, imported, offered to sell, or
sold in the United States since August 28, 2007 (for products containing a
three element imaging lens, or for products containing both a three element
imaging lens and a five element imaging lens) or Aug. 13, 2013 (for
products containing a five element imaging lens and no three element
imaging lens).

7

(Id.) In relevant part, Samsung objected to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that it is

8

overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

9

admissible evidence “to the extent it is not limited to the accused lens assemblies

10

contained in [the products explicitly mentioned in Largan’s infringement contentions.]”

11

(Id. at 8-9.) Samsung thus limited its initial response to the accused lens

12

assemblies—meaning the lens modules and camera modules containing an accused lens

13

module—within those specifically enumerated products. (Id. at 10-11.) Samsung

14

supplemented its response during the course of discovery. (Id. at 11-14, 29.) Largan

15

now moves to compel the production of documents responsive to Interrogatory No. 5,

16

consistent with its definition of “Accused Product.”

17

Largan asserts that the Joint Motion “raises two substantive questions: (1) does

18

discovery extend to ‘reasonably similar’ products, or only those specifically named in the

19

infringement contentions; and (2) what constitutes ‘reasonably similar’ products.” (Dkt.

20

No. 97 at 21.) It claims that both questions have been answered by the Court, such that

21

the Court should order Samsung to “identify all of its products containing three or five

22

lens elements.” (Id. (citing Dkt. No. 83).)

23

Specifically, Largan cites to two Court Orders for its conclusion. First, Largan

24

claims that in a February 5, 2015 Order, the Court held that “any three or five lens

25

element product that will be announced prior to the close of fact discovery is

26

discoverable.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 83).) Largan has mischaracterized the

27

the Order, which is titled, tellingly, “Order Governing Depositions” (hereinafter

28

“Deposition Order”). The Court agrees with Samsung that the Deposition Order
3

13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

1

“resolved a specific dispute: when Samsung could instruct deposition witnesses not to

2

answer questions about unreleased products based on privilege.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 24.) As

3

Samsung now argues, the Court determined that “Samsung could not invoke trade secret

4

privilege during a deposition to instruct a witness not to answer about three-element or

5

five-element lens modules manufactured by Samsung that are currently under

6

development and would be released by the close of fact discovery.” (Id. (citing Dkt. No.

7

83 at 1-2).) The Court was not, contrary to Largan’s claim, making a wholesale

8

determination of relevance for all products containing three or five lens systems.

9

Second, and similarly, Largan claims that the Court’s February 9, 2015 Order

10

(hereinafter the “Samsung Order”) already determined the relevance of all three and five

11

element lens designs. (Id. at 3, 16 (citing Dkt. No. 84).) In fact, Largan states that “this

12

Court has consistently held that three and five element lenses [sic] designs produced

13

during a relevant time period are relevant for discovery.” (Id. at 16.) Largan takes the

14

Samsung Order completely out of context, and its conclusion is incorrect. The Court

15

there determined that Largan’s prior designs with certain specific characteristics were

16

relevant to, at a minimum, Samsung’s invalidity defense “because they may lead to prior

17

art directed to three-element and five-element designs as claimed in the patents-in-suit

18

and because they provide background information on the state of the art at the relevant

19

times.” (Dkt. No. 83 at 7.) Such a limited finding does not permit Largan to conclude

20

that the Court has held that all three-element and five-element lens modules (or products

21

containing them) are relevant in this case.

22

To the contrary, from the outset of discovery, the Court has generally limited the

23

scope of discovery for both parties to the patents-in-suit unless a further relevance

24

showing has been made. (See, e.g., Dkt No. 46 at 4 (rejecting Samsung’s definition of

25

“Largan Products”, which included “products, whether manufactured or sold by Largan

26

that Largan contends embody the subject matter of any of the Patents-in-Suit....”)

27

(emphasis added); Dkt. No. 61 at 13(“To the extent that Interrogatory No. 2 is not limited

28

to accused lens assemblies, the Court finds that Largan has not established the relevance
4

13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

1

of the requested information....”); Dkt. No. 84 at 3-5 (limiting Samsung’s request for the

2

production of deposition transcripts to the four inventors of the patents-in-suit who were

3

deposed in Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Genius Electronic Optical Co., Ltd., 13-cv-2502

4

(N.D. Cal.)).) Though Largan claims that the Court has previously decided the relevance

5

issues in its favor, it appears that Largan is actually asking the Court to reconsider its

6

prior determinations and reasoning. In Largan’s first set of Requests for Production of

7

Documents, Largan defined “Implicated Products” to encompass its definitions of

8

“implicated imaging lenses,” “implicated camera modules,” and “implicated electronic

9

devices.” (Dkt. No. 49-2 at 4.) The Court noted that through Largan’s expansive

10

definitions, “Largan clearly sought documents not only relating to the allegedly

11

infringing imaging lenses and camera modules, but also non-accused imaging lenses and

12

camera modules, and Samsung’s products themselves (both those that contain allegedly

13

infringing components and those that do not).” (Dkt. No. 61 at 4 (citing Dkt. No. 49-2 at

14

4).) The Court generally concluded that Largan had not established the relevance of the

15

broader discovery it sought in that motion. (See id. at 11.) Now, instead of using the

16

phrase “Implicated Products”, Largan uses the phrase “Accused Products”, but with the

17

same goal seemingly in mind—discovery into all Samsung’s three and five element lens

18

products.

19

Even at this eleventh hour, Largan still has not established the relevance of the

20

information sought in Interrogatory No. 5. Through the definition of “Accused Product”,

21

Interrogatory No. 5 goes far beyond the “accused apparatus, product, [or] device” that

22

Largan identified in its infringement contentions. (Pat. L. R. 3.1(b)).) As the Court

23

previously noted, Largan’s infringement contentions only identify “[t]he imaging lens

24

and camera module” as the “[a]ccused product” in each and every claim. (Dkt. No. 61 at

25

11 (citing Dkt. No. 49-3 at 4-6).) Largan argues that its infringement contentions “extend

26

to designs ‘similar’ to the specifically accused models.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 3 (citing Dkt.

27

No. 65-3 (which purportedly contains “excerpts of Largan’s infringement contentions

28

that accuse specific devices and other products with the ‘same or similar’ lens design”)).)
5

13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

1

This argument does not justify the expansive discovery Largan seeks.

2

First, the Patent Local Rules require more specificity. (Pat. L. R. 3.1(b) (the

3

identification of each accused apparatus, product, or device “must be as specific as

4

possible” and “must be identified by name or model number, if known”)); Mediatek, Inc.

5

v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 2013 WL 588760, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013)

6

(denying motion to compel discovery into products that were not specifically identified as

7

accused products under similar local patent rule); Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.,

8

2011 WL 4479305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011) (noting that similar local patent rule

9

does not “tolerate broad categorical identifications” or “the use of mere representative

10

examples” in infringement contentions); see also Icon-IP Pty Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle

11

Components, Inc., 2014 WL 4593338, at **2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014). Second, even

12

if the identification of “similar” products was sufficiently specific under Pat. L. R. 3.1(b),

13

Largan itself has acknowledged that the number of lens elements is only one component

14

of many bearing on infringement. (Dkt. No. 74 at 22) (“Even the broadest claim ...

15

contains a large number of additional limitations relating to, among other things, the

16

shape of the lenses, the radius of curvature of the lens surfaces, and the focal lengths of

17

the lenses and the image lens array.”).) Thus, the mere fact that a lens module has three

18

or five lens elements, like the specifically accused products, does not mean that such a

19

lens module is sufficiently similar to justify Largan’s expansive discovery.

20

In sum, the Court agrees with Samsung that “[t]here is no proper basis here for

21

Largan to now try to re-open fact discovery on lens systems not identified in their

22

infringement contentions.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 5.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES

23

Largan’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 5.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 3, 2015

26
27
28

Hon. Nita L. Stormes
United States Magistrate Judge

6

13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)