Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 1

MOTION to Compel Microsoft Corporation to Respond to Subpoena, by Petitioner Princeton Digital Image Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 PROPOSED Order Granting Motion to Compel, # 2 PROPOSED Protective Order, # 3 Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pollack, # 4 Certificate of Service, # 5 E-mail Requesting New Case) Noting Date 1/13/2012. (JS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13

PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Respondent.

16
17

[Original action pending in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
PDIC v. Canon, Case No. 2:10-cv-29 JRG]

v.

14
15

NO.

PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE
CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT
CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA
NOTE ON CALENDAR:
January 13, 2012

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

Princeton Digital Image Corporation (“PDIC”) moves to compel Microsoft Corporation

3

(“Microsoft”) to respond to PDIC’s subpoena issued in connection with the litigation captioned

4

Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Canon, Inc., et al., No. 10-00029, currently pending in

5

the Eastern District of Texas (the “Underlying Litigation”).

6

PDIC has made every effort to address and resolve Microsoft’s objections to the

7

subpoena, and certifies that it has complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and CR 37(a)(1)(A).

8

After meeting with Microsoft on November 7, 2011, PDIC drafted and sent Microsoft a

9

proposed Protective Order to address any confidentiality concerns Microsoft might have

10

regarding the documents and information sought by PDIC. PDIC also offered to withdraw

11

various document requests and modify others to address Microsoft’s objections based upon

12

alleged burden.

13

For its part, Microsoft has not addressed any of PDIC’s concessions or offers to

14

compromise. Instead, several weeks after meeting with PDIC, Microsoft reversed course and

15

stated, for the first time, that it would not even consider producing documents or testifying in

16

response to PDIC’s subpoena because the Underlying Litigation was purportedly stayed by an

17

Order entered in that case on October 13, 2011 – weeks before the parties initially met and

18

conferred.

19

Microsoft’s belated argument that the Underlying Litigation was stayed is incorrect.

20

The October 13, 2011 Order merely suspended selected court-ordered deadlines in the

21

Underlying Litigation (e.g., the filing of claim construction briefs) while the court considered

22

the defendants’ motion to transfer venue. Thus, the parties in the Underlying Litigation have

23

continued to engage in discovery, including the taking of depositions months after the October

24

13, 2011 Order was entered.

25

Microsoft’s shifting tactics show that its only interest is to delay its response to PDIC’s

26

subpoena and obstruct PDIC’s ability to discover relevant information to support its claims

27

against Microsoft’s customer, Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”), a defendant in the
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 1
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1

Underlying Litigation. This is plainly improper. Left with no valid objection to PDIC’s

2

subpoena, Microsoft should be compelled to produce documents and testify in response to the

3

subpoena.

4

II.

BACKGROUND

5

A.

6

On September 27, 2011, PDIC served Microsoft with a subpoena seeking to discover

The Underlying Litigation

7

information relevant to its claims against HP in the Underlying Litigation. (See the Declaration

8

of Jeffrey S. Pollack (the “Pollack Decl.”) ¶ 3, and Subpoena, a copy of which is attached to the

9

Pollack Decl. as Exhibit “A.”) At issue is whether HP infringes the following patents owned

10

by PDIC: U.S. Patent No. 4,813,056 (“the ‘056 Patent”), which teaches a method and

11

apparatus of encoding image data into a JPEG file, and U.S. Patent No. 4,860,103 (“the ‘103

12

Patent”), which teaches a method and apparatus for automatic gain control and/or exposure

13

control for digital image processing.

14

There is no dispute that HP sells computers to consumers that come pre-packaged with

15

software programs that encode image data into a JPEG file, and thus potentially infringe the

16

‘056 Patent. Those programs are sold or provided to HP by various software manufacturers,

17

including Microsoft.

18

The functionality incorporated into this software is relevant to PDIC’s claims against

19

HP. However, HP has referred PDIC to Microsoft to obtain the relevant source code and

20

technical documents, such as schematics and flowcharts, for that software. PDIC must

21

therefore seek this information from Microsoft.

22
23
24
25

B.

Microsoft’s Refusal To Produce Documents Or Testify In Response To
PDIC’s Subpoena Despite PDIC’s Efforts To Address Microsoft’s
Objections

Microsoft served its objections to PDIC’s subpoena on October 11, 2011, refusing to
produce any of the documents requested by PDIC and refusing to testify regarding any of the

26
27
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 2
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1

topics noticed by PDIC. (See Pollack Decl. ¶ 4, and Objections to Subpoena, a copy of which

2

is attached to the Pollack Decl. as Exhibit “B.”)
On October 31, 2011, PDIC requested a meet-and-confer with Microsoft to address and

3
4

resolve Microsoft’s objections. (See Pollack Decl. ¶ 5, and Letter from Jeffrey S. Pollack to

5

Jesse J. Camacho dated October 31, 2011, a copy of which is attached to the Pollack Decl. as

6

Exhibit “C.”) The parties subsequently met and conferred via telephone on November 7, 2011

7

and discussed Microsoft’s objections. (See Pollack Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, and Letter from Jeffrey S.

8

Pollack to Jesse J. Camacho dated November 14, 2011, a copy of which is attached to the

9

Pollack Decl. as Exhibit “D.”) Following this meet-and-confer, PDIC made a good faith effort

10

to address Microsoft’s objections, making numerous concessions and offers to compromise.

11

(Id. ¶¶ 7-10 and Exh. “D.”)
To address any confidentiality concerns Microsoft might have, PDIC sent Microsoft a

12
13

proposed Protective Order. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8 and Exh. “D.”) And, to address Microsoft’s objections

14

related to burden, PDIC agreed to withdraw three document requests – Requests 2, 5, and 8 –

15

and to narrow others.1 (Id. ¶ 9.) Specifically, PDIC agreed to narrow the timeframe set forth in

16

its Document Requests. (Id.) And where PDIC’s document requests sought “all documents” or

17

“any and all documents,” PDIC agreed to limit its requests to “documents sufficient to identify”

18

or “documents sufficient to refer to or reflect” the information sought. (Id.)

19

Microsoft has not addressed any of PDIC’s concessions or offers to compromise.

20

Instead, several weeks after meeting with PDIC, Microsoft reversed course, stating, for the first

21

time, that it would not even consider responding to PDIC’s subpoena. (See Pollack Decl. ¶

22

11 and Email dated December 7, 2011 from Jesse J. Camacho to Jeffrey S. Pollack, a copy of

23
24
25
26
27

1

These concessions and compromises were made by PDIC with the expectation that Microsoft would produce
documents responsive to PDIC’s document requests. Although PDIC reserved the right to seek full compliance
with its subpoena should Microsoft refuse to produce documents, PDIC stands by its original concessions and
offers to compromise in this motion, except as otherwise stated herein. In moving to compel Microsoft to produce
documents responsive to only certain of the requests contained in PDIC’s subpoena and to testify at deposition
regarding only certain of the topics listed in the subpoena, PDIC does not waive the right to seek, at a later date,
Microsoft’s full compliance with the subpoena.
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
TO SUBPOENA - 3
[phone]
No.

1

which is attached to the Pollack Decl. as Exhibit “E.”) Microsoft did so on the purported basis

2

that an order entered in the Underlying Litigation on October 13, 2011 – weeks before the

3

parties’ initially met and conferred – had stayed the Underlying Litigation. (Id.)
As discussed above and as set forth below in greater detail, the Underlying Litigation is

4
5

not stayed. (Id.) This is merely a tactic by Microsoft to delay its obligation to produce

6

documents and be deposed. Accordingly, for these and the reasons that follow, Microsoft

7

should be compelled to produce documents and testify in response to PDIC’s subpoena.

8

III.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

ARGUMENT
A.

The Underlying Litigation Is Not Stayed; Microsoft Is Required To
Respond To PDIC’s Subpoena

Microsoft’s assertion that the Underlying Litigation is stayed is demonstrably wrong.
On October 13, 2011, the following order was entered in the Underlying Litigation:
It is therefore ORDERED that in light of the Order granting
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue [Dkt. No. 143], the Court
hereby suspends any and all pending deadlines pursuant to the
Local Patent Rules and the Court’s Docket Control Order [Dkt.
No. 69] and Discovery Order [Dkt. No. 70] until such time as the
Court has ruled on PDIC’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No.
146] of the Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Transfer
Venue.

18

(See October 13, 2011 Order, a copy of which is attached to the Pollack Decl. as Exhibit “F”)

19

(emphasis added). The effect of this order is that the parties do not have to comply with the

20

deadlines previously set by the Court (e.g. the filing of claim construction briefs). As case law

21

from the Eastern District of Texas – where the Underlying Litigation is pending – shows, the

22

intent of this order is not to stay discovery. Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 2004 U.S.

23

Dist. LEXIS 30049, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2004) (holding that order “suspending the then-

24

current scheduling order . . . did not stay discovery.”); accord Tree of Life Distrib. Co. v.

25

National Enters., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17980, at *7 (D.V.I. Nov. 5, 1998) (“the mediation

26

order did not ‘stay’ the case; it simply ‘suspended’ all deadlines pending mediation.”).

27

Accordingly, the parties in the Underlying Litigation continue to conduct discovery, as
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 4
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1

evidenced by the fact that PDIC conducted the deposition of Defendant Xerox International

2

Partners on December 1, 2011 – almost two months after the October 13, 2011 Order was

3

entered. (See Pollack Decl. ¶ 13.)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

B.

Microsoft Should Be Compelled To Produce Documents And Be Deposed In
Response To PDIC’s Subpoena
1.

The Standard for Third Party Discovery

In determining whether to enforce a subpoena under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, “the Court needs to balance (1) the relevance of the information sought in the
underlying case, (2) the requestors’ need for the information from the subpoenaed source, (3)
the burden on the source to produce the information, and (4) the harm, if any, that disclosure of
the requested information would have on the source.” Norex Petroleum Limited v. Chubb Ins.
Co., No. 04-281, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19127, at *3-4 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2005); Gonzales v.
Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“a court determining the propriety of a
subpoena balances the relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's need, and the
potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena.”).
“Relevancy for discovery purposes is construed broadly to encompass “any matter that
bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or
may be in a case.” EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133051, at *11
(E.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2011); Florer v. Johnson-Bales, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104617, at *6
(W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2009) (same).
2.

Microsoft Should Be Compelled To Produce Source Code Regarding
Software That Microsoft Provided Or Sold To HP And That
Practices The Claims Of PDIC’s ‘056 Patent (Requests 1 and 3)

23

PDIC’s claims against HP arise, at least in part, from PDIC’s assertion that computers

24

sold by HP come pre-packaged with Microsoft software that generates JPEG image files in a

25

manner that infringes the claims of the ‘056 Patent. Because the JPEG encoding functionality

26

is embodied in the algorithms contained in the source code corresponding to the Microsoft

27
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 5
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1

software products, the source code will provide information that is relevant to PDIC’s claims

2

against HP in the Underlying Litigation.
Those trained in reading source code can learn from it exactly how a program operates

3
4

and, therefore, whether it practices the claims of the patents in-suit. Courts have accordingly

5

found, in patent infringement cases, that source code is highly relevant and discoverable.

6

Forterra Sys. v. Avatar Factory, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63100, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22,

7

2006) (granting motion to compel source code in its entirety, finding source code to be relevant

8

in patent infringement action); In re Google Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9924, at *21 (N.D.

9

Cal. Jan. 27, 2011) (holding that “there is no serious question” that source code for product

10

accused of infringement is discoverable).
PDIC understands that at least one product that Microsoft provides or sells to HP that

11
12

encodes data into a JPEG file in an infringing manner is the Microsoft Scanner and Camera

13

Wizard. However, PDIC has imperfect knowledge regarding the identity and functionality of

14

all of Microsoft’s software products. There are likely other such products that PDIC is unaware

15

of which incorporate the same (or substantially similar) JPEG encoding functionality as the

16

Scanner and Camera Wizard. Thus, PDIC requested that Microsoft produce the following:
1. The source code (in a form
readable by a source code editor
tool) for all versions of the
Microsoft Scanner and Camera
Wizard that you sold or otherwise
provided directly or indirectly to
HP for use on computers offered
for sale, sold or imported in the
United States from 2004-2008.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(Exh. “A” to the Pollack Decl.)
Microsoft has no valid objections to producing this source code. Any such objections

24
25
26
27

3. All versions of all source code
(in a form readable by a source
code editor) for encoding data into
a JPEG file format and/or
And decoding JPEG files for each
JPEG Software Product2 identified
in response to Request No. 2.

were addressed and resolved by PDIC following the parties’ meet-and-confer. Specifically,
2

“JPEG Software Product” is defined as “any software product that incorporates the functionality to encode data
into a JPEG file format and/or the functionality to decode JPEG files, including without limitation the Microsoft
Scanner and Camera Wizard and any and all Microsoft software applications and Microsoft operating systems.”
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
TO SUBPOENA - 6
[phone]
No.

1

Microsoft objected to producing documents responsive to Requests 1 and 3 beyond the ‘056

2

Patent’s expiration date and without a protective order. (See Exh. “B” to the Pollack Decl.)

3

These objections were addressed and resolved by PDIC’s agreement to limit the timeframe of

4

its document requests to January 1, 2004 – December 8, 2007, and by the Protective Order

5

PDIC drafted and offered to enter into with Microsoft. (See Pollack Decl. ¶¶ 8-9 and Exh.

6

“D.”) Microsoft has raised no objection to the Protective Order drafted by PDIC. The Court

7

should therefore enter the Protective Order and compel Microsoft to produce source code.3
With respect to Request 3, Microsoft raised two additional objections: (1) that Request

8
9

3 was overly broad because PDIC did not identify the specific products for which it was

10

seeking source code; and (2) that PDIC’s request for “source code . . . for encoding data into a

11

JPEG file format and/or decoding JPEG files” was overbroad because, as Microsoft interprets

12

it, the ‘056 Patent does not pertain to decoding JPEG files. (See Exhs. “B” and “D” to the

13

Pollack Decl.)

14

PDIC has satisfied its initial burden of identifying which of Microsoft’s numerous

15

products encode JPEG files. PDIC has provided ample information regarding the relevant

16

JPEG encoding functionality to guide Microsoft’s identification of products that include that

17

functionality. Certainly, Microsoft is familiar enough with its own products and their

18

functionality to be able to readily identify which of them encode JPEG files in a manner that is

19

the same as, or substantially similar to, how the Microsoft Scanner and Camera Wizard

20

implements JPEG image file encoding. Even so, in an effort to alleviate any undue burden on

21

3

22
23
24
25
26
27

The objections referenced above are the only ones that Microsoft has raised to Request 1 in PDIC’s subpoena.
Accordingly, there should be no further obstacle to producing source code related to the Microsoft Scanner and
Camera Wizard. In Forterra Systems v. Avatar Factory, supra, the producing party, like Microsoft, “claim[ed]
undue burden from the risk of inadvertent disclosure if the highly confidential and proprietary source code is
produced.” 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63100, at *4. The court held that this did not constitute a valid ground on
which to resist discovery because “[a] court may order that ‘confidential information not be revealed or be
revealed only in a designated way.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7)). Here, PDIC has drafted and presented
Microsoft with a proposed Protective Order to which Microsoft has asserted no objection. (See Pollack Decl. ¶ 8
and Exh. “D.”) PDIC requests that the Court enter that Protective Order and compel the production of source code
responsive to PDIC’s subpoena. In conjunction with this motion, PDIC is submitting a version of the proposed
Protective Order (1) that has been reformatted to comply with CR 10, and (2) the first paragraph and signature
block of which have been modified to reflect the fact that Microsoft has not stipulated to the order’s entry. The
proposed Protective Order being submitted today is otherwise identical to Exhibit D to the Pollack Declaration.
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
TO SUBPOENA - 7
[phone]
No.

1

Microsoft, PDIC identified the following Microsoft products for which it seeks source code

2

based upon the ability of those products to incorporate, edit or save JPEG images: (i) Microsoft

3

Word; (ii) Microsoft PowerPoint; (iii) Microsoft Paint; (iv) Windows Photo View; (v)

4

Microsoft Office; (vi) Windows Media Center; and (vii) Microsoft Excel. (See Pollack Decl. ¶

5

10 and Exh. “D.”)
Not even this limitation on the scope of PDIC’s subpoena prompted Microsoft to

6
7

produce source code. Instead, having once again obtained the concessions it requested from

8

PDIC, Microsoft argued that even this short list of products was overbroad.4 (See Exh. “E” to

9

the Pollack Decl.) Microsoft’s position is untenable. Microsoft is best suited to know and,

10

indeed, should know the functionality of its own products and be able to produce source code

11

related thereto. Thus, having rejected PDIC’s reasonable compromise on this issue, Microsoft

12

should be compelled to produce source code for all of the products it provided or sold to HP

13

during the relevant timeframe that can encode data into JPEG files.

14

3.

16

Microsoft Should Be Compelled To Produce The Revision History
For Source Code Related To The Software Products Microsoft
Provided Or Sold To HP, Which Practice The Claims Of PDIC’s
‘056 Patent (Request 6)

17

The revision history for source code also is discoverable. Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant

15

18

Software, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131547, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2009); see also

19

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Asus Computer Int’l, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3878, at *16 (E.D. Tex.

20

Jan. 21, 2009) (ordering production of drafts or revisions to source code).

21

Revisions to Microsoft’s source code will show whether and how Microsoft’s products

22

changed over time, including whether they may have practiced the claims of the ‘056 Patent at

23

one point in time but not at another. Source code revisions can also show if Microsoft’s

24
25
26
27

4

Microsoft complains that PDIC included Microsoft Office alongside products that are offered as part of
Microsoft Office. (See Exh. “E” to the Pollack Decl.) This does not make PDIC’s request overly broad. Instead,
it highlights how Microsoft holds all of the cards in this action. Microsoft knows its products and what they do.
Thus, its demand that PDIC identify which of its products encode JPEG files is absurd. Microsoft also complains
that PDIC has not identified what version of software it is looking for. (Id.) But PDIC already informed
Microsoft that the scope of its subpoena is from January 1, 2004 – December 8, 2007. Thus, PDIC seeks all
versions of Microsoft’s software that encode JPEG files provided or sold to HP during the relevant timeframe.
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
TO SUBPOENA - 8
[phone]
No.

1

products always possessed the ability to encode JPEG files or if that functionality was added by

2

Microsoft later. Either way, source code revisions may constitute evidence of, among other

3

things, the “utility and advantages of” PDIC’s patents “over old modes and devices,” and “the

4

benefit of those who have used” PDIC’s patented invention, all of which is relevant to PDIC’s

5

damages claim in the Underlying Litigation. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood

6

Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1119-20 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). Accordingly, Microsoft should be

7

compelled to produce documents responsive to the following:

8
9
10
11

6. Any and all documents which refer to or reflect any revisions
or changes to the source code for the JPEG Software Products
identified in response to Request No. 2 that were requested by
HP.
(Exh. “A” to the Pollack Decl.)

12

Once again, Microsoft has no valid objections to producing the documents requested by

13

PDIC. Any such objections were addressed and resolved by PDIC following the parties’ meet-

14

and-confer. Specifically, Microsoft objected to this request claiming that the phrase “any and

15

all documents” was overbroad. (See Exh. “D” to the Pollack Decl.) In response, PDIC agreed

16

to limit this request to “documents sufficient to refer to, reflect and identify all revisions or

17

changes to source code” for the software products Microsoft provided or sold to HP during the

18

relevant timeframe that can encode JPEG files. (Id.) This includes Microsoft’s source code

19

revision history. Accordingly, Microsoft should be compelled to produce documents and

20

source code responsive to this request.

21

4.

Microsoft Should Be Compelled To Produce Technical Documents
Illustrating The Manner In Which Its Products Operate (Request 4)

22

In addition to source code, PDIC is entitled discover technical documents, such as
23

schematics and flow charts, that illustrate or describe the manner in which Microsoft’s products
24

encode JPEG files. See Automated Merch. Sys. v. Crane Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122166,
25

at *27-28 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 21, 2011) (ordering production of schematics); Implicit Networks,
26

Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115708, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009)
27
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 9
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1

(ordering production of documents describing functionality of accused product);

2

LaserDynamics, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3878 at *16 (ordering production of schematics

3

describing functionality of accused process). Microsoft should, therefore, be compelled to

4

produce documents responsive to the following:

5
6
7
8
9
10

4. All documents that illustrate and/or describe the manner in
which each JPEG Software Product identified in response to
Request No. 2 encodes data into a JPEG file format and/or
decodes a JPEG file, including documents that identify the
codewords employed to encode data into a JPEG file format
and/or to decode a JPEG file.
(Exh. “A” to the Pollack Decl.)
As with the document requests discussed above, any objections Microsoft may have had

11

to producing documents responsive to this request were addressed and resolved by PDIC

12

following the parties’ meet-and-confer. Similar to Request 6, discussed above, Microsoft

13

objected to Request 4 claiming that the request for “all documents” was overbroad. (See Exh.

14

“D” to the Pollack Decl.) PDIC addressed and resolved this objection, agreeing to limit its

15

request to “documents sufficient to identify the information requested.” (Id.) This includes

16

technical documents, schematics, and flow charts. Accordingly, Microsoft should be

17

compelled to produce documents responsive to this request.

19

Microsoft Should Be Compelled To Produce Documents Related To
The Patents In Suit And The Underlying Litigation (Requests 7
and 9)

20

Microsoft should also be compelled to respond to the following document requests and

18

21
22
23
24

5.

to produce documents that relate to the patents-in-suit and the Underlying Litigation:
7. All documents which refer or
relate to this lawsuit, the Patentsin-Suit, Princeton Digital or
Princeton Digital Image
Compression

25
26

And

9. Any and all documents which
refer or relate to a request and/or
inquiry for documents made by
HP, in the time period 2010 to
present relating to or for purposes
of this lawsuit.

(Exh. “A” to the Pollack Decl.)

27
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 10
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1

Any documents Microsoft possesses regarding the Underlying Litigation or PDIC are

2

relevant and discoverable. Such documents may reflect, among other things, information

3

regarding the utility of the patents-in-suit, their profitability, and their ability to promote the

4

sale of other products. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 318 F. Supp. at 1119-20.

5

Documents reflecting any inquiry from HP relating to the Underlying Litigation may

6

contain similar analyses. Moreover, they are relevant and discoverable to show what products

7

Microsoft and HP believe may encode JPEG files and practice the claims of the ‘056 Patent.

8

Accordingly, Microsoft should be compelled to produce documents responsive to these

9

requests.

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

6.

Microsoft Should Be Compelled To Be Deposed Regarding The
Topics Related To The Document Requests Set Forth Above

Because Microsoft refused to produce any documents responsive to PDIC’s subpoena,
PDIC postponed Microsoft’s subpoenaed deposition with the expectation that “once Microsoft
produces documents and makes source code available for inspection it will make a witness
available to be deposed on the deposition topics noticed.” (See Exh. “D” to the Pollack Decl.)
Due to Microsoft’s refusal to produce any documents, this issue was left unresolved.
To ensure that the parties are not back before the Court after Microsoft is compelled to
produce documents and source code to PDIC, PDIC requests at this time that Microsoft also be
compelled to testify regarding the following deposition topics, each of which relates to the
document requests discussed above: (1) Topic 1 (The identity and operation of each JPEG
Software Product sold or provided to HP); (2) Topic 2 (the individuals who designed and
programmed the JPEG Software Product sold or provided to HP); (3) Topic 3 (circumstances
surrounding any and all revisions or changes to each JPEG Software Product); (4) Topic 6 (the
circumstances surrounding any and all requests and/or inquiries for documents made by HP);
and (5) Topic 7 (the identity, source and authenticity of each document or thing (including
source code) produced in response to PDIC’s document requests). (Subpoena at Deposition
Topics 1-3 & 6-7, Exh. “A” to the Pollack Decl.)
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 11
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]

1
2
3
4

IV.

CONCLUSION
For each of the foregoing reasons, PDIC respectfully requests that the Court grant its

Motion to Compel and order the relief requested herein and in the enclosed form of Order.
DATED: December 29, 2011.

5

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP

6
7

By

8
9
10
11
12

/s/ Duncan E. Manville
David N. Bruce, WSBA #15237
Duncan E. Manville, WSBA #30304
1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 206.749.0600
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Princeton Digital Image Corporation

13

OF COUNSEL:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

DUANE MORRIS LLP
Gregory M. Luck, P.C.
Thomas W. Sankey, P.C.
Wesley W. Yuan
Diana M. Sangalli
1330 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77056-3166
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 713.583.3901
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Jeffrey S. Pollack
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 215.689.4942
Email: [e-mail]

23
24
25
26
27
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND
TO SUBPOENA - 12
No.

SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
[phone]