Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. v. HP Inc.

Background

The court addressed a joint submission concerning three discovery disputes:

The court resolved the matters without oral argument.

Privilege Challenge

UCT’s privilege log claimed protection for 31 documents, divided into Quarterly Business Review documents and damages documents. HP challenged eight Quarterly Business Review documents and seven damages documents.

The court held that UCT made a prima facie showing of attorney-client privilege—a preliminary showing sufficient to support withholding the information at that stage. UCT represented that the documents were prepared to obtain legal advice about litigation claim potential, planning, and costs and contained legal analysis, recommendations, and confidential communications between business personnel and legal counsel. The court found HP’s arguments that the documents concerned only business matters and were not prepared for litigation unpersuasive at this stage.

For most of the challenged documents, HP did not provide enough factual support to justify private court review. Accordingly, HP’s request for production or private court review of UCT_PRIV_001-006, UCT_PRIV_010, UCT_PRIV_016-019, UCT_PRIV_022-023, and UCT_PRIV_026 was DENIED.

The court treated UCT_PRIV_009 differently. HP pointed out that the document had the same date and title as a document produced by Stout Capital, identified as Stout_00001. The court found that this was enough to make private review appropriate, although it did not establish that the two documents were the same. UCT was ordered to email UCT_PRIV_009 and Stout_00001 to the court for private review, without further argument, by March 13, 2026.

Interrogatories 20 and 21

Interrogatory 20 asked UCT to explain in detail the factual basis for its position that none of the asserted patents was essential to any identified standard, including supporting or contrary facts, documents, and communications. Interrogatory 21 asked UCT to identify portions of each accused standard that UCT claimed were optional or not required for compliance.

The court found both interrogatories relevant to infringement and non-infringement issues. It reached different conclusions about their burden and timing. Interrogatory 20 properly sought the factual basis for UCT’s position. Because UCT had admitted that the asserted patents were not essential to the standards at issue, the court reasoned that UCT must have some factual basis for that admission. Facts in UCT’s possession could not be withheld merely because UCT expected to address them in future expert reports.

By contrast, Interrogatory 21 improperly required UCT to create an analysis it represented it had not yet performed. The court stated that, once UCT disclosed the factual bases requested by Interrogatory 20, HP could not use Interrogatory 21 to require UCT to create what was essentially expert analysis.

HP’s request to compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. UCT was ordered to supplement its response to Interrogatory 20.

HP’s AMD-Based PC Spreadsheet

The court clarified an earlier order concerning the products UCT had accused of infringement. Although UCT’s charts and explanations were sufficient to accuse HP personal computers incorporating AMD processors generally, UCT had not actually accused every such HP product. The court gave examples of products UCT had not accused, including the EliteBook 645 G10, EliteBook 835 G9 and G10, the OmniBook 3, and the ProBook x360 435 G10.

The earlier order required HP to identify each accused PC product SKU, not every HP PC product with an AMD processor. Products that were not accused were therefore outside the earlier order, regardless of whether they used AMD processors.

The court nevertheless found UCT’s concern about piecemeal updates to HP’s identification spreadsheet justified. HP was ordered to produce one updated and complete Excel spreadsheet by March 13, 2026, identifying the central processing units, graphics processing units, and power-delivery controllers for each accused PC product SKU.

The court did not resolve the separate sales-data dispute at that time. It found that dispute not yet ready for decision because HP had already agreed to investigate and supplement, if necessary, its sales data for all accused AMD-based products sold in the United States. The court stated that HP would be held to its agreements and representations once the final spreadsheet was compiled.

Disposition

The order denied HP’s request for production or private review of the specified privilege documents, required private review of UCT_PRIV_009 and Stout_00001, granted HP’s interrogatory request in part and denied it in part, required UCT to supplement Interrogatory 20, and ordered HP to provide a complete spreadsheet for each accused PC product SKU.