Snaprays v. Ontel Products Corporation et alMOTION for Discovery and Memorandum in SupportD. UtahOctober 19, 201794366768.3 0064461-00001 Timothy K. Conde (#10118) timothy.conde@stoel.com Elliott J. Williams (pro hac vice) elliott.williams@stoel.com Jordan C. Bledsoe (#15545) jordan.bledsoe@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 201 S Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 328-3131 Facsimile: (801) 578-6999 Attorneys for SnapRays, LLC dba SnapPower IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DISTRICT SNAPRAYS, LLC dba SNAPPOWER, a Utah limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, and ASHOK “CHUCK” KHUBANI, an individual residing in New Jersey, Defendants. SNAPRAYS, LLC DBA SNAPPOWER’S SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION RE DISCOVERY REQUESTS Case No.: 2:16-cv-01198-CW Judge Clark Waddoups Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner (TELEPHONIC HEARING REQUESTED) Plaintiff SnapRays dba SnapPower (“SnapPower”) submits this motion to compel Defendants to respond to document requests 56, 63, 65, and 67 (the “Four Requests”) included in SnapPower’s first set of discovery requests (the “Discovery Requests,” attached as Exhibit A). Case 2:16-cv-01198-CW-PMW Document 109 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 4 94366768.3 0064461-00001 2 INTRODUCTION This Court recently ruled that any discovery unrelated to claim construction is stayed until after claim construction is decided. Dkt. #100 (the “Order”). The Order instructed Defendants to respond to the Discovery Requests “for any of SnapPower’s discovery requests that seek information related to claim construction” within fourteen days. SnapPower immediately identified requests that relate to claim construction, including the Four Requests. Exhibit B. On September 27th, Defendants responded only to Interrogatory #9. They refused to respond to the remaining requests. The parties met and conferred. In an effort to compromise and avoid court involvement, SnapPower focused ultimately on the Four Requests. Defendants refused to reconsider their position. Exhibit C. SnapPower addressed Defendants’ cited case law, misrepresented facts, and erroneous conclusions via its October 17th letter. Exhibit D. SnapPower seeks an order requiring Defendants to produce documents immediately and without further objection in response to the Four Requests. SnapPower made good faith efforts to resolve these issues, as demonstrated by the facts outlined above. ARGUMENT The law is clear. Claim construction evidence includes (i) the intrinsic record of a patent, and (ii) extrinsic evidence that bears on how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Exclusion of relevant extrinsic evidence at claim construction is reversible error. Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (concluding that the district court erred by disregarding extrinsic evidence of how the accused infringer used a disputed claim term in an internal memorandum); see also Teva Pharm. Case 2:16-cv-01198-CW-PMW Document 109 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 4 94366768.3 0064461-00001 3 USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (reversing the Federal Circuit for failing to apply deferential standard of review to district court’s factual determinations of extrinsic evidence at claim construction). Evidence of the accused products also provides necessary context for claim construction, e.g., structures and design-arounds that arguably correspond to the claim elements. See Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (reversing district court claim construction for lacking evidence of the accused features of the defendant’s product as needed to provide “complete context for accurate claim construction”). The case law Defendants cite is inapposite. See Ex. D. The Four Requests1 are likely to lead to the discovery of extrinsic evidence that relates to claim construction under one or more of the principles articulated above. The Court should grant this Motion. DATED: October 19, 2017. STOEL RIVES LLP /s/ Timothy K. Conde Timothy K. Conde Elliott J. Williams Jordan C. Bledsoe Attorneys for SnapRays, LLC dba SnapPower 1 SnapPower contends there are additional requests that easily meet the applicable standard. Without waiving its right to seek an order requiring Defendants to respond to those additional requests, SnapPower files this motion only as to the Four Requests. Case 2:16-cv-01198-CW-PMW Document 109 Filed 10/19/17 Page 3 of 4 94366768.3 0064461-00001 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 19, 2017, a full and correct copy of the foregoing SNAPRAYS, LLC DBA SNAPPOWER’S SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION RE DISCOVERY REQUESTS was served upon counsel of record via email to the following: John S. Artz s jartz@dickinsonwright.com Franklin M. Smith fsmith@dickinsonwright.com DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 2600 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 300 Troy, Michigan 48084 Jason M. Kerr jasonkerr@ppktrial.com PRICE, PARKINSON & KERR 5742 W. Harold Gatty Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 /s/ Robin Noss Case 2:16-cv-01198-CW-PMW Document 109 Filed 10/19/17 Page 4 of 4
