Signify Holding B.V. v. Mega Systems Inc.

Nature of the Filing

The provided text is a letter dated October 16, 2023, from counsel for Mega Systems Inc. to Judge Louis L. Stanton. Mega Systems requested a pre-motion conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 before filing a motion to compel discovery from Signify Holding B.V. Alternatively, Mega Systems asked for permission to file that motion.

Discovery Dispute

Mega Systems described two categories of requested documents:

1. Patent-related documents. Mega Systems said Signify had refused to produce documents concerning patents licensed under the parties’ Patent License Agreement. Mega Systems argued that the documents were relevant because its products could be subject to royalties and Signify’s damages claims only if Signify could show that the products practiced one or more licensed patents.

2. Product-evaluation information. Mega Systems said Signify had refused to produce technical information concerning Signify’s evaluation and testing of Mega Systems’ products, including information underlying allegations in the complaint. According to Mega Systems, Signify claimed that the information was privileged because testing was performed by in-house counsel. Mega Systems argued that facts and technical information were not protected merely because they were considered by counsel, and that the agreement required Signify to disclose the results of its assessment. Mega Systems also asserted that Signify had offered to provide the technical information during pre-lawsuit communications.

What the Court Did

The provided text does not contain a court ruling. It records Mega Systems’ positions and request for a conference or permission to file a motion to compel. Although the letter says the court previously rejected a position by Signify during an April 4, 2023 scheduling conference, the supplied text does not provide a separate ruling on the discovery requests described here.