throbber
Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan
` California State Bar No. 237460
` ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 789-3100
`Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
`
`Ravi Bhalla
` Pro hac vice forthcoming
` New York State Bar No. 5478223
` rbhalla@susmangodfrey.com
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 336-8330
`Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff California Institute of
`Technology
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 5:22-MC-80318
`
`E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:21-CV-0446-JRG
`
`PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE
`OF TECHNOLOGY’S NOTICE AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL SUBPOENA
`COMPLIANCE BY BROADCOM CORP.
`AND BROADCOM INC. AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`Date: December 27, 2022
`Time: 10:00 AM PT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION .................................................................................................................1
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ...........................................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .............................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
`
`Background ..............................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Patents ....................................................................................3
`
`The C.D. Cal. Action against Broadcom and Apple ....................................4
`
`The E.D. Tex. Action against Samsung .......................................................5
`
`The Broadcom Subpoenas ...........................................................................6
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................8
`
`Argument .................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The discovery sought from Broadcom is relevant. ......................................8
`
`The discovery sought from Broadcom is proportional. ...............................9
`
`Broadcom is not entitled to assert a claim preclusion defense. .................11
`
`There is no claim preclusion. .....................................................................12
`
`There is no claim splitting..........................................................................19
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .............................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs.,
`487 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................19
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................14
`
`Bell v. United States,
`No. CV F 02–5077, 2002 WL 1987395 (E.D. Cal. 2002) .......................................................11
`
`Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................4
`
`Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co.,
`947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..................................................................................................13
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................17
`
`Gonzales v. Google, Inc.,
`234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ...............................................................................................8
`
`Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colorado, Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp.,
`296 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................19
`
`Hurd v. D.C.,
`864 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................12
`
`Khalilpour v. CELLCO P’ship,
`No. C 09-02712 CW MEJ, 2010 WL 1267749 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010) .................................8
`
`Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co.,
`26 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................17
`
`MLC Intell. Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-03345, 2019 WL 4963253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019) ............................................15
`
`Mpoyo v. Litton Electro–Optical Sys.,
`430 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................12, 13
`ii
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-CV-00211-JRG, 2021 WL 1530935 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2021)
`................................................................................................................................12, 15, 16, 17
`
`Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay,
`742 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana,
`522 U.S. 470 (1998) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Rogers v. Rivera,
`No. 115CV00007MCASCY, 2017 WL 3405606 (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2017) ............................11
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 22-MC-80005-VKD, 2022 WL 425579 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022) ....................................8
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`695 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................15
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Round Rock Rsch. LLC,
`No. 11-CV-05243-RS, 2014 WL 691565 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) ........................................8
`
`In re Schimmels,
`127 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`531 U.S. 497 (2001) .................................................................................................................16
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`884 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................16
`
`Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency,
`322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................18
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .................................................................................................................11
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,
`968 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`Plaintiff California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) respectfully moves this Court for
`entry of an order under Rules 37 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compelling
`Broadcom Corp. and Broadcom Inc. (together, “Broadcom”) to produce documents in accordance
`with subpoenas served on both entities in a case pending in the United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas, California Institute of Technology v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et
`al., No. No. 2:21-CV-0446-JRG (the “E.D. Tex. Action”). In accordance with N.D. Cal. Civil
`Local Rule 7-2(a), Caltech notices this motion for December 27, 2022 at 10:00 AM PT. The
`grounds for this Motion are set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below and the
`accompanying Declaration of Ravi Bhalla (“Bhalla Dec.”).
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether non-parties Broadcom Corp. and Broadcom Inc. should be compelled to produce
`documents and source code in response to subpoenas seeking relevant information relating to Wi-
`Fi chips that they supply to Samsung.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Introduction
`Non-party Broadcom is resisting straightforwardly relevant discovery regarding Wi-Fi
`chips that it sold to Samsung with a claim preclusion argument that is not an appropriate basis to
`resist discovery, that Broadcom is not entitled to assert as a third party, and that is, in any event, a
`meritless defense. And Broadcom raises no argument as to burden—nor could it do so given the
`clear nature of Caltech’s requests and that Broadcom has gathered similar discovery for another
`action. This Court should roundly reject Broadcom’s attempts to skirt its discovery obligations on
`the basis of its novel and inapplicable claim preclusion argument and order full compliance with
`the subpoenas Caltech served.
`In connection with patent litigation that Caltech has against Samsung, Caltech seeks from
`Broadcom documents and source code relating to Wi-Fi chips that Broadcom supplies to Samsung.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`Because Samsung identified these Broadcom chips as performing a relevant functionality in the
`accused infringing products, the discovery Caltech seeks from Broadcom about the operation of
`the chips is relevant to its case against Samsung.
`The discovery is also proportional, not only because it is tailored to the precise set of 20
`Broadcom chips that Samsung has identified, but also because Broadcom has already collected
`and produced much of the requested material for 18 of the chips in ongoing litigation that Caltech
`has against Broadcom in the Central District of California. See California Institute of Technology
`v. Broadcom Ltd., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03714 (C.D. Cal.) (the “C.D. Cal. Action”). The burden on
`Broadcom is thus minimal, and because the protective order in the C.D. Cal. Action prevents
`Caltech from using the discovery it received from Broadcom outside of that litigation, Broadcom
`is the appropriate party to provide the information at issue.
`Nonetheless, Broadcom will not comply with the subpoenas, straining to justify its refusal
`with a claim preclusion argument that is not a basis for a third party to refuse to produce responsive
`discovery to a subpoena, and, in any event, is also meritless. According to Broadcom, it need not
`comply with the subpoenas because the C.D. Cal. Action involves some of the same chips that are
`also used in Samsung products at issue in the E.D. Tex. Action and Caltech is therefore precluded
`from obtaining information about those chips in the E.D. Tex. Action.
`Broadcom is not a defendant in Caltech’s case against Samsung. It thus has no standing or
`basis to assert a claim preclusion defense in the E.D. Tex. Action because there are no claims
`against Broadcom in that case. Samsung, the actual defendant in the case, has not resisted
`providing discovery into its products that use Broadcom chips. Indeed, the whole reason Caltech
`subpoenaed Broadcom in the first place is because Samsung identified certain Broadcom chips as
`relevant to Samsung’s accused products.
`Moreover, claim preclusion does not apply at all. First, the E.D. Tex. Action and the C.D.
`Cal. Action do not involve the same claims or causes of action. Across the two suits, not only are
`different products at issue, but there is also an additional patent and additional patent claims at
`
`
`
`2
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`issue in the E.D. Tex. Action that are not at issue in the C.D. Cal. Action. Caltech also expressly
`carved out damages based on Samsung products that use Broadcom chips from the relief it is
`seeking in the C.D. Cal. Action, further separating the claims at issue across the two Actions.
`Broadcom has explicitly acknowledged this in its correspondence with Caltech. See Ex. 5 at 4
`(Broadcom acknowledging “Caltech’s decision in the prior case to drop its claims against Samsung
`products containing Broadcom chips”). Second, there is no final judgment in the C.D. Cal. Action
`that can form the basis of any claim preclusion in the E.D. Tex. Action. And third, Broadcom and
`Samsung, two entities with an arms-length commercial relationship, are not in privity. No matter
`which way it’s sliced, claim preclusion simply does not apply.
`For all these reasons, and those that follow, this Court should order Broadcom’s
`compliance with the subpoenas at issue.
`Background
`II.
`The Asserted Patents
`A.
`The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710 (the “‘710 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`7,421,032 (the “‘032 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781 (the “‘781 patent”), and U.S. Patent No.
`8,284,833 (the “‘833 patent”) (together, “the Asserted Patents”). The Asserted Patents disclose a
`class of error correction codes, and the claimed methods and apparatuses in the Asserted Patents
`are directed to encoders and decoders. The technology disclosed in the Asserted Patents can be
`used to correct errors in transmissions that occur over a wireless communications channel, such as
`Wi-Fi. E.D. Tex. Dkt. 75 ¶¶ 27, 32-33 (Second Amended Complaint).
`Wi-Fi is used in a wide array of modern consumer electronics, such as smartphones,
`televisions, and computers, and the functionality typically involves the use of a Wi-Fi chip
`installed in the consumer electronic device. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`(“IEEE”) develops and maintains standards for Wi-Fi. Three of the more recent versions of the
`IEEE Wi-Fi standard—IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, and 802.11ax—involve the use of specific low-
`density parity check (“LDPC”) error correction codes to improve performance and reduce errors
`
`
`
`3
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`in transmission. Id. ¶¶ 31-33. These LDPC codes can be implemented by using the
`encoder/decoder technology disclosed by the Asserted Patents. Id. ¶ 33.
`The C.D. Cal. Action against Broadcom and Apple
`B.
`The C.D. Cal. Action was filed in 2016. Caltech initially asserted all four of the Asserted
`Patents against Apple Inc. and Broadcom, but two years before trial, Caltech voluntarily withdrew
`the ‘833 patent, without prejudice. C.D. Cal. Dkt. 397 (Caltech’s “Notice of Withdrawal of Certain
`Asserted Claims of Asserted Patents”). Caltech also voluntarily withdrew all but the following
`claims of the ‘781, ‘710, and ‘032 Patents prior to trial: claims 11 and 18 of the ‘032 Patent, claims
`13 and 22 of the ‘781 Patent, and claims 20 and 22 of the ‘710 Patent. C.D. Cal. Dkt. 1451
`(Caltech’s notice “withdrawing its infringement allegations with respect to all remaining claims”
`except for those listed).
`In 2020, a jury found that Wi-Fi products from Apple and Broadcom infringed claims 20
`and 22 of the ‘710 Patent, claims 11 and 18 of the ‘032 Patent, and claim 13 of the ‘781 Patent,
`and awarded Caltech over $1.1 billion in damages. C.D. Cal. Dkt. 2114 (Jury Verdict). In
`accordance with Caltech withdrawing the ‘833 Patent and various claims of the ‘781, ‘710, and
`‘032 Patents, the judgment entered by the Central District of California does not reflect any
`disposition with respect to that patent or those claims. C.D. Cal. Dkt. 2245.
`Apple and Broadcom appealed to the Federal Circuit, which, in February 2022, (1) upheld
`the jury’s verdict of infringement of the ‘710 and ‘032 Patent claims, (2) vacated the jury’s verdict
`of infringement of the ‘781 Patent claim, (3) vacated the damages award, and (4) remanded for a
`new trial on infringement of the ‘781 Patent claim and damages. California Inst. of Tech. v.
`Broadcom Ltd., 25 F.4th 976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed Sept. 7, 2022. In short,
`after the Federal Circuit’s decision, there is no final judgment on remedy in the C.D. Cal. Action,
`and there is no final judgment on liability with respect to the ‘781 Patent. And the new trial will
`not happen until June 2023. See C.D. Cal. Dkt. 2453 (order setting a June 6, 2023 trial date).
`
`
`
`4
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`In the C.D. Cal. Action, Caltech is not asserting any claims or seeking damages based on
`Broadcom’s sales of chips to Samsung for use in the accused Samsung products, as Broadcom
`itself has acknowledged. Ex. 5 at 4 (Broadcom acknowledging “Caltech’s decision in the prior
`case to drop its claims against Samsung products containing Broadcom chips”); Ex. 6 at 6 (“Q. . .
`. [A]part from these numbers were there additional WiFi chips with LDPC codes that Broadcom
`sold during the relevant time period here that are not included in these numbers? A. Yes. There’s
`other WiFi chips that Broadcom sold to other end customers, not Apple end customers, like
`Samsung . . . . [N]one of that’s in here. That’s not part of this case, but those are chips Broadcom
`sold.”) (Jan. 22, 2020 C.D. Cal. trial testimony from Caltech’s damages expert team).
`The E.D. Tex. Action against Samsung
`C.
`The E.D. Tex. Action is a suit brought by Caltech against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) for infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`Caltech filed that action in December 2021, alleging that certain Wi-Fi products sold by Samsung
`infringe the Asserted Patents.
`Specifically, Caltech is accusing all Samsung products that are Wi-Fi enabled and comply
`with any of the IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, or 802.11ax standards. Caltech served a pair of
`interrogatories asking Samsung to identify all of its Wi-Fi-enabled products and, for each such
`product, to identify the chip that is used as part of the Wi-Fi functionality. Bhalla Dec. ¶ 2. In its
`initial and supplemental interrogatory responses, Samsung identified dozens of products that use
`20 different Wi-Fi chips manufactured by Broadcom. Id. ¶ 3. Samsung did not assert any
`objections or resist identifying any Broadcom chips on the basis of the C.D. Cal. Action. Id. ¶ 4.
`And, in fact, in later produced sales data, Samsung included information about the sales of
`Samsung products that use the same Broadcom chips that are at issue in the C.D. Cal. Action. Id.
`Because the Wi-Fi chip in each Samsung product performs a relevant functionality, Caltech
`has pursued discovery from each of the chipmakers identified by Samsung, including Broadcom.
`Of all the chipmakers, only Broadcom has resisted producing responsive materials. Id. ¶ 15.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`The Broadcom Subpoenas
`D.
`In April 2022, Caltech issued two, identical third-party subpoenas to Broadcom Corp. and
`its parent entity, Broadcom Inc. See Exs. 1, 2. The subpoenas seek documents and source code
`pertaining to chips that Broadcom supplies to Samsung, identified by Samsung as relevant to the
`accused Samsung products.
`The subpoenas seek the following relevant information about Broadcom’s Wi-Fi chips:
`
`• Request Nos. 1 and 2: Technical documents and source code showing how the
`Broadcom Wi-Fi chips perform LDPC encoding and decoding and the inputs and
`outputs of the LDPC encoder/decoders.
`
`• Request No. 3: Data sheets for the Broadcom Wi-Fi chips.
`
`• Request No. 4: Documents showing any third-party technology used by the
`Broadcom Wi-Fi chips.
`
`• Request No. 5: Documents showing the compliance with the IEEE 802.11n,
`802.11ac, and 802.11ax standards by the Broadcom Wi-Fi chips.
`
`• Request No. 6: Documents provided to Broadcom by its customers pertaining to
`various performance metrics of the Wi-Fi chips.
`
`• Request No. 7: Documents relating to the testing of the LDPC functionality in the
`Wi-Fi chips that Broadcom sold to Samsung.
`
`• Request No. 8: Documents showing the amount and price for which Broadcom sold
`Wi-Fi chips to Samsung.
`
`• Request No. 9: Communications or agreements between Broadcom and Samsung
`pertaining to Caltech, the Asserted Patents, or the E.D. Tex. Action.
`
`• Request No. 10: Documents Broadcom produced in the C.D. Cal. Action.
`
`
`Id.
`
`To the extent the materials sought by the subpoenas overlap with materials that Broadcom
`previously provided to Caltech in the C.D. Cal. Action, Caltech is not permitted under the C.D.
`Cal. Action’s protective order to use those materials for any purpose other than the prosecution of
`
`
`
`6
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`the C.D. Cal. Action. See C.D. Cal. Dkt. 101 at 1 (“Protected Material designated under the terms
`of this Protective Order shall be used by a Receiving Party solely for this case, and shall not be
`used directly or indirectly for any other purpose whatsoever.”).
`Broadcom served its responses to the subpoenas in May 2022, asserting a variety of
`objections. See Exs. 3, 4. The parties met and conferred over a number of months—via telephonic
`conferences on June 8 and August 8 and via e-mail correspondence—to address those objections.
`Bhalla Dec. ¶ 7; Ex. 5 (meet-and-confer correspondence). The focus of those discussions was one
`of Broadcom’s global objections, which it stated as follows and incorporated into each of its
`individual objections:
`
`Broadcom objects to Caltech’s subpoena seeking documents related to The California
`Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd., et al., C.D. Cal Case No. 2:16-cv-03714-GW-
`AGRx (“Broadcom case”) litigation for use in this matter. In the Samsung case, Caltech
`appears to accuse Samsung products that include the same Broadcom chips as were at issue
`in the Broadcom case and of infringing the same patents (or patents with materially similar
`claims) as those asserted and litigated to final judgment in the Broadcom case. As such,
`Caltech’s claims against Samsung are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, and thus
`the discovery sought by the subpoena is irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`Ex. 3 at 3; Ex. 4 at 3.
`Broadcom presented claim preclusion as a universal, gating issue to the entirety of
`Caltech’s requests. Id.; Bhalla Dec. ¶ 8. In Broadcom’s view, it was not obligated to produce any
`discovery in response to the subpoenas beyond documents sufficient to show the chips and patents
`at issue in the C.D. Cal. Action. Bhalla Dec. ¶ 11; Ex. 5 at 4.1 Anything beyond that, Broadcom
`maintained, would not be proportional to the needs of the case.
`After Caltech provided caselaw definitively establishing that there could be no claim
`preclusion based on the C.D. Cal. Action—because “a final judgment on liability without a final
`
`1 Of the 20 Broadcom chips at issue, Broadcom asserts that 18 of them are involved in the C.D.
`Cal. Action and discovery into those chips in the E.D. Tex. Action is barred by claim preclusion.
`Bhalla Dec. ¶¶ 11, 13. It asserts that discovery into the 19th chip is similarly barred because, even
`though it is not involved in the C.D. Cal. Action, it was “sold as early as 2018” and Caltech “could
`have” accused it in the C.D. Cal. Action. Id. ¶ 11. And Broadcom offered to produce a document,
`but not source code, showing that the 20th chip uses a direct parity encoder, which Broadcom
`asserts is non-infringing. Id.
`
`
`7
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`judgment on remedy is not sufficiently final for purposes of claim preclusion,” Ex. 5 at 5—
`Broadcom switched gears from arguing claim preclusion to arguing claim splitting. Id. at 4
`(“Caltech’s claims against Samsung are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion and, in
`particular, the prohibition against claim-splitting.”). At that point, the parties reached an impasse.
`III. Legal Standard
`The scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`is “broad.” Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
`“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
`claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A
`determination of proportionality is made “considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
`action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
`expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.
`Under Rule 45, a party may seek discovery from non-parties, and the permissible scope of
`that discovery is the same as the permissible scope under Rule 26. See In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 22-MC-80005-VKD, 2022 WL 425579, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022); Gonzales v. Google,
`Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
`On a motion to compel discovery, “[o]nce the moving party establishes that the information
`requested is within the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party opposing
`discovery” to establish why the discovery should not be permitted. Khalilpour v. CELLCO P’ship,
`No. C 09-02712 CW MEJ, 2010 WL 1267749, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010); SanDisk Corp. v.
`Round Rock Rsch. LLC, No. 11-CV-05243-RS, 2014 WL 691565, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014).
`IV. Argument
`The discovery sought from Broadcom is relevant.
`A.
`The Asserted Patents disclose error correction codes, including LDPC codes, and the
`claimed methods and apparatuses in the Asserted Patents are directed to correct errors in
`
`
`
`8
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`transmissions that occur over a wireless communications channel, such as a Wi-Fi channel.
`Samsung has identified dozens of “Wi-Fi products with LDPC functionality” that include 20
`different chips manufactured by Broadcom. Bhalla Dec. ¶ 3. Because Caltech’s infringement
`allegations focus on LDPC functionality and Samsung has identified specific Samsung products
`that use Broadcom chips to provide LDPC functionality, the requested materials are relevant.
`Broadcom has not contested the relevance of LDPC functionality to the Asserted Patents in its
`written objections or during the meet and confer process.
`Specifically, Request Nos. 1-7 pertain to the technical operation of the chips.
`Understanding the operation of the chips is directly relevant to the claim that Samsung products
`infringe the Asserted Patents, and the most direct evidence of how those chips operate is
`encompassed by these requests. Request Nos. 6-8 are relevant to Caltech’s damages. Documents
`responsive to these requests bear on the value of the functionality provided by the Broadcom chips.
`Request No. 9 seeks Broadcom’s communications or agreements with Samsung pertaining to
`Caltech, the Asserted Patents, and the E.D. Tex. Action—materials that will include any
`indemnification agreements between Samsung and Broadcom and communications about plainly
`relevant topics, such as the Asserted Patents. Finally, Request No. 10 simply seeks the materials
`that Broadcom produced in the C.D. Cal. Action, which will necessarily encompass relevant
`materials pertaining to the 18 chips that Broadcom claims are involved in both the E.D. Tex. and
`C.D. Cal. Actions.
`The discovery sought from Broadcom is proportional.
`B.
`The Rule 26(b)(1) proportionality factors all weigh in favor of Caltech.
`First, “the issues at stake in the action” and the “importance of the discovery in resolving
`th[ose] issues” are significant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The central issue of the E.D. Tex. litigation
`is whether the accused Samsung products infringe the Asserted Patents. Fundamental intellectual
`property rights are thus at stake and the discovery sought from Broadcom is integral to
`understanding the relevant Wi-Fi functionality of the accused Samsung products.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Caltech’s Notice and Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance by Broadcom – 5:22-MC-80318
`
`1
`2
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-mc-80318-SVK Document 1 Filed 11/21/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`Second, the amount in controversy is significant, as evidenced by the $1.1 billion awarded
`by the jury in the C.D. Cal. Action and the fact that Samsung, like Apple (against which the jury
`assessed $838 million in damages in the C.D. Cal. Action, see C.D. Cal. Dkt. 2114), is a large and
`substantial manufacturer
`of Wi-Fi-enabled
`consumer
`electronics,
`see Samsung,
`https://www.samsung.com/us/ (listing for sale dozens of Wi-Fi enabled products across multiple
`product categories); Samsung Electronics Announces Third Quarter 2022 Results (Oct. 27, 2022),
`https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-announces-third-quarter-2022-results
`(reporting $7.9 billion in operating profit).
` Third, as between Caltech and Broadcom, Broadcom has the best access to relevant
`information regarding its own chips and how they work. In fact, much of the information sought
`from Broadcom cannot be obtained anywhere else. For example, Broadcom is the sole steward of
`its source code, and Caltech is not permitted to use the discovery it received from Broadcom in the
`C.D. Cal. Action outside of that litigation. And as a large and profitable corporation, Broadcom
`certainly has the resources to provide the requested discovery. See Broadcom Inc. Announces Third
`Quarter Fiscal Year 2022 Financial Results and Quarterly Dividends, Broadcom (Sep. 1, 2022),
`https://www.broadcom.com

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket