`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1272
`
`
`ORDER NO. 10:
`
`GRANTING COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL NXP
`SEMICONDUCTORS N.V. AND NXP USA, INC. TO PRODUCE
`DOCUMENTS AND SOURCE CODE IN RESPONSE TO
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 11-13
`
`
`
`
`
`(November 23, 2021)
`
`On November 8, 2021, complainants MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.
`
`(collectively, “MediaTek”) moved (1272-006) to compel respondents NXP Semiconductors N.V.
`
`and NXP USA, Inc. (“NXP”) to provide source code responsive to a number of requests for
`
`production. On November 18, 2021, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) filed a
`
`statement in support (“Staff Resp.”). Also on November 18, 2021, NXP filed an opposition
`
`(“Opp’n”). No other responses were received.
`
`
`
`MediaTek’s motion is granted. MediaTek persuasively argues that the nature of the
`
`relevant functionality in the accused products is best shown through source code known as “RTL
`
`code”; and that this code squarely falls under previously served requests for production. Mot.
`
`Mem. at 3-4. NXP’s opposition does not resist the production of these materials, noting it “will
`
`produce RTL code by December 10 for the products accused of infringing the ’474 patent.” Opp’n
`
`at 1. NXP assures, “this is not a case of NXP hiding the ball” and “NXP believes it has produced
`
`documents ‘sufficient to show’ the structures of the accused products.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`These assurances are not well-taken given the inconsistent positions NXP has taken
`
`throughout this dispute. For example, during the teleconference procedure preceding the present
`
`motion, NXP argued the requested RTL code “is not relevant because it is less descriptive of the
`
`hardware than the materials already produced” but also that MediaTek has somehow “fail[ed] to
`
`identify relevant hardware leav[ing] NXP (and others) at a loss for what is actually relevant.”
`
`EDIS Doc. ID 755586 at 2; see Mot., Ex. A at 10:21-11:2 (“And the RTL code, in NXP’s view is
`
`not going to have information in it that is any more descriptive than the large volume of hardware
`
`documents that we’ve already produced on those products.”). Immediately, it is difficult to
`
`understand how the actual, as-implemented, source code could be less descriptive of accused
`
`product operation than technical documentation. Regardless, “the relevance of requested
`
`discovery is not measured by whether that discovery is more or less descriptive than other
`
`discovery.” Staff Resp. at 9.
`
`
`
`It also does not logically follow that NXP has somehow produced the most informative
`
`materials for the hardware at issue while also being unaware of what hardware is at issue. Even
`
`then, any ambiguity should have been cleared up on October 25, 2021 when MediaTek identified
`
`“the structures of the internal bus that connects to the temperature monitors, the topology of the
`
`internal bus, the protocols followed by the internal bus, the clock and date lines of the internal
`
`bus, the slaves and masters of the internal bus, the commands and clock signals on the internal
`
`bus, and the register indexes storing temperature, ID, and version information.” See Opp’n at 1
`
`(citing EDIS Doc. ID 755513, Ex. 4)); or, at the latest, November 2, 2021 since this is the date
`
`MediaTek served the infringement contentions NXP now uses to identify what code it promises
`
`to produce (see Opp’n at 2-5 (promising to provide code based on hardware identified in
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MediaTek’s November 2, 2021 contentions)). Thus, NXP’s claim that it could not know what
`
`RTL code to produce, thereby justifying total lack of production, rings hollow.
`
`Accordingly, MediaTek’s motion (1272-006) is granted. NXP’s self-selected delivery
`
`date of December 10, 2021 (see Opp’n at 1) is rejected, however. This leaves too little time to
`
`review the code before MediaTek’s December 22, 2021 contention supplementation deadline.
`
`Order No. 6. Thus, NXP shall produce all RTL code for the hardware identified in MediaTek’s
`
`infringement contentions as soon as is practicable, but no later than December 6, 2021.
`
`Within seven days of the date of this document, the parties shall submit to the Office of
`
`the Administrative Law Judges a joint statement as to whether or not they seek to have any portion
`
`of this document deleted from the public version. If the parties do seek to have portions of this
`
`document deleted from the public version, they must submit to this office a copy of this document
`
`with red brackets indicating the portion or portions asserted to contain confidential business
`
`information. The submission may be made by email and/or hard copy by the aforementioned date
`
`and need not be filed with the Commission Secretary.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`Cameron Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`3
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
