Sandisk Technologies, Inc. v. Viasat, Inc.

Background

SanDisk Technologies, Inc. and Viasat, Inc. are parties to a patent dispute filed in 2022. The discovery dispute concerned two interrogatories served by SanDisk.

Interrogatory 8 sought Viasat’s noninfringement contentions—that is, Viasat’s explanations for why its products did not infringe the asserted patent claims. Viasat served an initial response and three supplemental responses. SanDisk argued that the earlier responses lacked meaningful detail and that Viasat’s Third Supplemental Response, served on February 6, 2025, came too late in the fact-discovery period.

Interrogatory 14 sought Viasat’s contentions about noninfringing alternatives, including related documents and witnesses. Viasat served an initial response and two supplemental responses. SanDisk similarly argued that Viasat’s Second Supplemental Response, also served on February 6, 2025, provided important information too late for SanDisk to investigate it.

SanDisk moved to strike Viasat’s final supplemental responses. It also moved to shorten the time for briefing and the hearing. SanDisk and Viasat separately moved to seal portions of the briefing and supporting exhibits.

Legal standard

The court explained that district courts have broad authority to manage discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery may concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Relevance for discovery is broad, but discovery may still be limited when it is redundant or disproportionate.

The court also discussed contention interrogatories in patent cases. These interrogatories seek a party’s positions and the bases for those positions. The court stated that such responses commonly are served toward the end of fact discovery because they involve complex judgments about evidence, patent claims, and intellectual-property law.

Motion to strike the response to Interrogatory 8

The court denied the motion to strike Viasat’s Third Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 8. SanDisk argued that the late response prejudiced it because it could have pursued different discovery and asked different deposition questions if Viasat had provided the additional detail earlier.

The court found that SanDisk had not shown diligence in seeking more detailed answers. SanDisk knew about Viasat’s initial response from December 2023, its First Supplemental Response from December 30, 2024, and its Second Supplemental Response from January 25, 2025. SanDisk did not move to compel more detailed responses after receiving any of those answers.

The court also found that SanDisk had not identified specific discovery it needed because of a surprise disputed claim term or other new issue. The earlier responses had already denied infringement as to all or most limitations of the asserted claims. The court concluded that SanDisk’s general desire to ask additional deposition questions or retake depositions was not enough to justify striking the response or expanding discovery.

The court further reasoned that noninfringement is a rebuttal to infringement. In its view, Viasat’s added detail and evidentiary citations did not show a material shift in Viasat’s contentions or introduce new disputed issues. SanDisk therefore had not demonstrated a material change warranting relief under Rule 26(e)(1)(A).

Motion to strike the response to Interrogatory 14

For essentially the same reasons, the court denied the motion to strike Viasat’s Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 14. The court again found that SanDisk had not shown diligence because it did not move to compel more detailed answers after receiving Viasat’s earlier responses, including the First Supplemental Response served on January 8, 2025.

The court explained that noninfringing alternatives can be relevant to damages in a patent case. It compared Patent Local Rules 3-8 and 3-9, explaining that Rule 3-8 requires a patentee to disclose damages categories, theories, and factual bases, while Rule 3-9 requires a party denying infringement to disclose material facts relevant to the damages categories asserted by the plaintiff. The court stated that Rule 3-9 does not require a defendant to provide a factual basis for denying every damages contention.

The court noted that the record did not show SanDisk had moved to compel a more detailed disclosure under Patent Local Rule 3-9. It also found that SanDisk had not identified any specific new issue or discovery need created by Viasat’s supplemental response. SanDisk’s stated desire to retake a large number of depositions to strengthen its damages theories was not a sufficient basis to strike the response. The court concluded that SanDisk had not demonstrated a material shift in Viasat’s contentions.

Motion to shorten time

The court denied SanDisk’s motion to shorten time as moot. The briefing and hearing deadlines had already passed, and the court decided the motion to strike based on the submitted briefs and materials.

Motions to seal

The court granted the parties’ motions to seal. It recognized a strong presumption that judicial records should be publicly accessible and stated that a party seeking sealing generally must show compelling reasons supported by specific facts.

Here, the sealed portions and exhibits had been designated under the protective order as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” material, including source code and highly confidential business information. The court found that the materials contained sensitive business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. It determined that potential competitive harm was a compelling reason to seal the identified materials.

Disposition

The court denied SanDisk’s motion to strike Viasat’s final supplemental responses to Interrogatories 8 and 14; denied SanDisk’s motion to shorten time as moot; and granted the parties’ motions to seal. The order resolved docket entries 167, 168, 171, 177, and 178.