Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
July 29, 2015, Decided; July 29, 2015, Filed
Case No. 3:15-cv-00262-SI
[*658] OPINION AND ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC ("Memory Integrity" or "MI") brings this action, alleging patent infringement of five patents owned by MI. The patents in suit cover algorithms that efficiently maintain cache coherence1 in certain types of multiprocessor systems, as well as systems that implement those algorithms. MI alleges that Defendant Intel Corporation ("Intel") manufactures microprocessors that infringe each patent.2 The parties have conducted substantial discovery in this case but have arrived at a deadlock. Intel seeks to depose a corporate [*659] representative of MI on 33 topics under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). On 18 of these topics, MI refuses to [**2] designate and produce a corporate witness to testify. Further, Intel asserts that MI refuses fully to respond to certain requests for documents and interrogatories. MI argues that to the extent that Intel is entitled to the requested discovery, MI's responses are sufficient. Finally, Intel argues that regarding half of its accused products, MI's infringement contentions are insufficient; MI disagrees. Intel moves to compel discovery from MI. For the reasons that follow, Intel's Motion to Compel, Dkt. 95, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
"[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure promote a 'broad and liberal' policy of discovery 'for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.'" In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 507, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947)). The touchstone of permissible discovery is embodied in Rule 26(b)(1), which provides, in relevant part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 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. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
308 F.R.D. 656 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98833 **; 92 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 617
MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant.
Prior History: Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17813 (D. Del., Feb. 13, 2015)
patents, discovery, interrogatories, deposition, negotiations, infringement, argues, phase, designate, parties, objects, processors, settlement, records, Notice, asserts, license, matters
Civil Procedure, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Burdens & Expenses, Methods of Discovery, Depositions, Oral Depositions, Business & Corporate Compliance, Infringement Actions, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Methods of Discovery, Interrogatories