CDCA compels production of IBM cross-licenses and outbound licenses
On August 3, 2012, in Richard C. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, et al., CV 11-02409-AHM (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge McDermott granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant IBM to produce outbound licenses and cross-licenses incorporated into, or used in or with, the accused technology (web conferencing) in response to document requests and an interrogatory. In an earlier ruling, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel, but had based its decision on cases cited by IBM for the first time in a supplemental memorandum to which plaintiff had not responded. But the denial was without prejudice. Plaintiff filed its own supplemental memorandum, responding to IBM’s supplement, and then IBM responded to plaintiff. On further review, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel.
IBM relied on two Georgia-Pacific factors in support of denial of the motion, while plaintiff relied on five such factors to demonstrate the requested agreements are relevant to damages, including the market value of the patent-in-suit as a generator of sales of non-patented items (convoyed sales). In its responsive pleading, IBM did not address these five factors.
The court initially recognized that the standard for discoverability is broader than that for admissibility at trial, suggesting that while discoverable, the agreements may not ultimately get into the record at trial. The court stressed the liberal construction of relevance and the “extremely broad” scope of discovery under the Federal Rules.
The court then addressed the Federal Circuit decisions cited by IBM: Lucent, 580 F.3d 1301, 1327-28, and ResQNet, 594 F.3d 860, 869. The court observed that IBM’s reliance on these decisions was somewhat misplaced, because they addressed the question of admissibility rather than discoverability. The court also recognized that admissibility in those cases was fact-specific and that they did not set forth a per se rule of admissibility. Slip op. at 2 (citing Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int’l Distribution Ltd., 833 F. Supp. 2d 282, 310-12 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (expert may rely on licenses other than those covered by the patents to glean insight into defendant’s licensing approach)).
The court also addressed the only discoverability case relied on by IBM: Biax Corp. v. Nvidia, Corp., 271 F.R.D. 200, 213-15 (D. Colo. 2010). Biax had relied on Lucent and ResQNet to deny discoverability of cross-licenses, but according to Judge McDermott had done so without any discussion of the different legal standards. The Judge also cited two cases from the NDCA, post-Lucent and post-ResQNet, in which cross-licenses were deemed relevant for discovery purposes: Barnes and Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 2012 WL 1564734, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2012) (“While cross-licenses may be different in structure than licenses that simply provide for royalty payments, both are relevant for discovery purposes and may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”); Atmel Co. v. Authentic Inc., 2008 WL 276393, at *1-*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008) (compelling production of cross-licenses).
The court then turned to the facts at issue. It rejected IBM’s assertion that the requested cross-licenses and outbound agreements involve different technologies and different structures from the hypothetical license. It found persuasive the five un-rebutted Georgia-Pacific factors on which plaintiff had relied.
Perhaps most interesting for future litigants, the court rejected IBM’s attempt to distinguish Barnes & Noble. There, the court had ordered production only of comparable cross- and outbound licenses. However, here, IBM had apparently failed to produce a declaration under oath on the comparability of the license agreements requested by plaintiff, and the court concluded that it “would be left to take IBM’s bare word that they have no relevance even for discovery purposes.” Slip op. at 3. Clearly, the court was not persuaded by IBM’s attorney argument regarding the comparability of the licenses at issue.
Finally, the court reasoned that its ruling was not unfair to IBM. According to the court, IBM had initially agreed to produce the licenses, only later to change its mind. The court also rejected IBM’s undue burden argument because it did not produce a declaration to quantify the time, money, and procedure to produce the documents. Slip op. at 3 (citing In re Toys R Us-Delaware, Inc. v. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litigation, 2010 WL 4942645, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2010)).
For another case interpreting relevance broadly as to license agreements, see an SDCA decision that was addressed in another blog entry: http://patent-damages.com/?s=sdca.
Related posts:
- Judge Davis, EDTX, compels production of negotiation documents re license agreements
- CDCA denies motion to compel production of settlement agreements
- District of Delaware allows damages experts to rely on distributor agreements, cross licenses and collaboration agreements as relevant comparable agreements
- District of Minnesota Orders Production of License Negotiation Documents and Sanctions

Recent Posts
- California Law on Reverse Payment Settlements Goes into Effect
- DNJ finds award of lost profits does not preclude injunction
- DDE excludes damages approach due to lack of comparability
- D. Neb. denies JMOL, finds delay in filing suit irrelevant to damages
- EDTX denies motion to exclude expert’s patent valuation opinion
Categories
- 25% Rule
- 271(a)
- 271(f)
- 287(a)
- Accelerated Market Entry Theory
- Admissibility of license agreements
- Analytical Method
- and evidence
- Apportionment
- Apportionment – Degree of Use
- apportionment – claim scope
- apportionment – conventional features
- Apportionment – rate apportioning
- apportionment – real estate approach
- Apportionment – Use of Defendant’s Documents
- Asset or patent sale and reasonable royalties
- Assignment
- Bifurcation of damages
- Book of Wisdom
- Breach of Contract
- Comparable Agreements
- Comparable Licenses
- Cost savings approach
- Court as gatekeeper
- Damages articles
- Daubert
- delay filing suit
- Discoverability of agreements and other damages-related documents
- Discoverability of license negotiation documents
- Do-overs for expert reports
- Enhanced Damages
- Entire market value rule
- Exclusion Order
- Expert witnesses and admissibility of testimony supporting damages
- Extraterritoriality
- Federal Circuit decisions
- Foreign Sales
- Foreign tax laws & damages
- FRAND
- Future Damages
- Hypothetical License
- Hypothetical Negotiation
- Inexorable flow doctrine of lost profits
- injunction
- ITC
- Joint infringement
- Judgment as a Matter of Law
- Jury verdict form
- Laches
- Large damages verdicts
- Legislative patent damages reform
- Lost Profits
- Lost profits – market share
- Lost profits – two-supplier market
- Lost profits requires patentee product
- Lump sum awards and issues
- Market approach
- Market Share
- Marking
- Misuse
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Nash Bargaining Solution
- Net profits computations
- New trial
- Non-infringing alternatives
- Notice
- NPE-specific issues
- Ongoing royalties
- Panduit
- Patent damages books and articles
- Patent damages speeches and seminars
- Patent marking
- patent valuation
- Permanent injunction
- Piggy-backing experts
- Post verdict royalties
- Post-Hypo Date Evidence
- Prejudgment interest
- Price Erosion
- Profitability of accused products and royalties
- RAND
- Real Estate Apportionment
- Reasonable royalties: capped
- Reasonable Royalty
- Reasonable royalty – license agreements
- Reasonable royalty – litigation risk multiplier
- Related Entities
- Royalty rate exceeds defendant's profit margin
- Royalty Rate Exceeds Rate to Which Parties Stipulated
- Rule 702
- Sanctions
- Settlement agreements
- Smallest Salable Patent Practicing Unit
- Spoliation
- Standards
- Standing
- Statutory Presumption of Damages
- Stay of damages awards pending appeal
- Subsidary
- Summary Judgment
- Summary judgment for failure of proof
- Supplemental Damages
- Surface Area Apportionment
- Surveys
- U.S. Government Sales and 28 USC 1498
- Uncategorized
- valuation