Concurrent Ventures, LLC, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.

Background

This patent-infringement case concerns data-processing units used in storage, networking, and artificial-intelligence infrastructure. The plaintiffs assert five patents against at least twelve accused products. The discovery dispute involved the plaintiffs’ amended notice for depositions of company representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The amended notice contained 115 topics.

The defendants asked the court to strike ten topics. They argued that Topics 2 and 39 were overly broad catch-all requests; Topics 34, 38, 87, 108, 111, and 126 improperly sought legal contentions or expert opinions; Topic 107 required an excessive amount of memorization; and Topic 74 improperly sought information about the defendants’ discovery process. The plaintiffs argued that the topics were sufficiently specific, sought underlying facts rather than legal opinions, and were supported by claimed deficiencies in the defendants’ document production.

Legal standards

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality considers factors including the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and whether its burden outweighs its likely benefit. The court also applied Rule 30(b)(6), which requires a corporate-deposition notice to describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity. A company must prepare a knowledgeable witness to answer questions about the designated subjects, but the rule does not require preparation on every aspect of the litigation.

Rulings on the challenged topics

Topic 2. The court struck Topic 2. It sought testimony about every product or design that the defendants had not implemented in connection with fifteen patent features, but the plaintiffs had not identified those features until five business days before the deposition. The court held that the topic did not identify the matters for examination with reasonable particularity and was facially unreasonable. Even if the features had been identified, the request for every unimplemented product or design would have been too broad and insufficiently bounded.

Topic 39. The court found Topic 39 overbroad as written but narrowed it based on the plaintiffs’ description of the topic. The topic may seek testimony about the defendants’ role, actions, and communications concerning configuring, setting up, or supporting the accused products for their customers.

Topics 34 and 38. The court allowed both topics to proceed as served. Topic 34 seeks facts known to the defendants about the operation, design, architecture, and use of the Elba DPU relevant to the defendants’ mapping of that product to two asserted United States patents. The court held that the request for known facts did not improperly seek legal contentions or expert testimony. Topic 38 seeks factual testimony about third parties’ use, setup, network design, architecture, operation, configuration, programming, or access involving the accused products, including acts identified in a defendants’ interrogatory response. The court held that the interrogatory response merely limited the subject to specific acts and did not turn the topic into a request for legal or expert opinions.

Topic 87. The court narrowed Topic 87. As originally written, it improperly sought expert opinions about non-infringing alternatives and would have required preparation about alternatives identified by the plaintiffs but not identified. The narrowed topic is limited to facts known to the defendants concerning potential non-infringing alternatives identified in the defendants’ own damages contentions. The permitted subjects include how to implement each alternative; its technical and commercial acceptability; when it became available; the defendants’ costs to design, develop, manufacture, implement, and maintain it; its effect on customer total cost of ownership; and its performance.

Topic 108. The court narrowed Topic 108 to facts only. The original topic sought the defendants’ knowledge, analysis, or opinions about patents included in licenses identified as relevant to a hypothetical negotiation, including patent validity, value, significance, infringement, and benefits. The court held that analysis and opinions about validity and infringement were improper expert subjects, but that facts underlying the defendants’ beliefs about the value, significance, and use of the licensed patents could be explored.

Topic 111. The court narrowed Topic 111 to facts underlying the defendants’ non-infringement and invalidity theories. The plaintiffs could explore facts supporting the defendants’ asserted beliefs that there was no infringement and that the asserted patents were invalid. But the topic could not require explanations of the defendants’ legal theories or disclosure of privileged analyses, investigations, or inquiries.

Topic 126. The court allowed Topic 126 to proceed as served. It seeks factual information about the harm the defendants would suffer if they had to stop selling or disable the accused products. The court held that the topic did not require testimony about the legal conclusion of irreparable harm or any other legal conclusion.

Topic 107. The court allowed Topic 107 to proceed. It concerns facts surrounding comparable licenses identified in the defendants’ damages contentions, including execution of the agreements, the defendants’ relationships with the counterparties, and whether the licenses arose from litigation or settlement. The court held that the topic was tied to licenses the defendants themselves identified and that the plaintiffs were entitled to investigate facts relevant to comparability.

Topic 74. The court narrowed Topic 74. The plaintiffs may question whether the defendants’ financial systems or databases can generate revenue reports at the unit-sale level. They may not seek broader testimony about those systems or databases. The court found that the plaintiffs had shown a specific production deficiency because the defendants’ documents did not break revenue down on a product-by-product basis. The court said that questions about data in the produced spreadsheets could instead be pursued under Topic 72.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ request to strike the ten topics. It struck Topic 2, narrowed Topics 39, 74, 87, 108, and 111, and left Topics 34, 38, 107, and 126 in place as served. Judge Laurel Beeler stated that the order resolved ECF No. 288.