Lenovo Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG

Background

Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility, LLC, together referred to as Lenovo, brought claims against IPCom GmbH & Co., KG. Lenovo alleged that IPCom failed to comply with obligations to offer licenses for certain declared standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms.

IPCom had moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning that it argued the court lacked authority over IPCom. Judge Edward J. Davila determined that Lenovo had not made an initial showing supporting personal jurisdiction, but allowed the parties to conduct discovery about that issue. He referred disputes about the scope of that discovery to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. IPCom could renew its motion to dismiss after the jurisdictional discovery was completed.

Discovery Dispute

IPCom sought an interrogatory requiring Lenovo to identify and describe every fact that Lenovo contended would allow the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over IPCom. IPCom argued that the request was relevant to specific personal jurisdiction and would allow IPCom to address Lenovo’s jurisdictional facts in the opening brief for a renewed motion to dismiss.

Lenovo argued that Judge Davila’s order contemplated only Lenovo’s discovery from IPCom. Lenovo also argued that the interrogatory improperly sought a preview of Lenovo’s opposition to the renewed motion and would impose an undue burden by requiring Lenovo to itemize the facts supporting its position.

The court held that Judge Davila’s order did not prevent IPCom from seeking discovery from Lenovo because the order allowed “the parties” to conduct jurisdictional discovery. But the court distinguished ordinary discovery of facts known to Lenovo from the contention interrogatory IPCom proposed, which asked Lenovo to identify the facts it believed established personal jurisdiction.

Ruling

The court concluded that IPCom’s proposed interrogatory was not proportional to the needs of the case. It reasoned that the relevant facts were presumably already known to IPCom or would be discovered through the jurisdictional discovery Lenovo conducted. The court was also confident that IPCom could evaluate the legal significance of any new facts and address them in its opening or reply brief when renewing its motion to dismiss.

Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi therefore denied the discovery sought through IPCom’s contention interrogatory.