8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

1/8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BIGBAND NETWORKS, INC.,

P l a i n t i f f ,v.

IMAGINE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,Defendant .

Civ i l Act ion No. 07-351-JJF

Peter P. Chen, Esquire of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Menlo Park,Cal i fo rn ia .James L. Day, Esquire of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San Francisco ,Cal i fo rn ia .Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esqui re ; Jeremy Ale xa nd er T ig an , Esqui re , andKaren Jacobs Louden, Esquire of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELLLLP, Wilm ingto n, Delawa re .Attorneys fo r P l a i n t i f f .John E. Gartman, Esqui re ; John W. Thornburgh; Esqui re , ThomasMil l ikan , Esquire and Frank J . Alber t , Esquire of FISH &RICHARDSON P.C. , San Diego, Cal i fo rn ia .Char les V in ce nt, E sq uire and Douglas E. McCann, Esquire of FISH &RICHARDSON P.C. , Wilmington, Delaware.Attorneys fo r Defendant .

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J U l y ~ , 2010Wilmington, Delaware.

8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

2/8

Pending before the Cour t i s P la in t i f f BigBand Networks,Inc . ' s ("BigBand U ) Motion To Compel Source Code And Fur therResponses To Writ ten Discovery. ( 0 . 1 . 159 . ) For the reasonsd iscu ssed , th e Motion wi l l be granted .I . BACKGROUND

Bigband i n i t i a t e d t h i s pa ten t infr ingement a ct io n a ga in stDefendant Imag ine Communica tions, Inc . (" Imagine U ) on June 5,2007. (0 .1 . 1 .) The pa t en t s - i n - su i t genera l ly r e l a t e toincreas ing the amount of da ta t ha t can be offered by a cablet e l ev i s ion provider without having to change the phys i ca lin f ras t ruc ture of a cable dis t r ibu t ion system.I I . DISCUSSION

A. The Production Of Source Code: Future Products

By i t s Motion, BigBand contends t ha t the Cour t previous lyordered Imagine to d isc lo se a l l of i t s source code r e l a t i ng tofu ture produc ts , but Imagine has n ot complied . Imagine disputesBigBand's content ion t ha t the Court ordered the p roduc tion oft h i s in format ion in the f i r s t i n s t ance .

On June 6, 2008, th e Court held a Motion Hearing concerninga Motion To Compel (0 .1 . 42) in which BigBand sought theproduct ion of ce r t a in wri t t en discovery. At the hea ring , theCourt s t a t ed :

[W]hat my ro le here i s now based on what you both t o ld me,1

8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

3/8

8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

4/8

d i s c o v e r a b l e because o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e p r o d u c t s w i l lchange b e f o r e t h e y a r e r e le as e d ( i f t h e y a r e e v e r r e l e a s e d ) , andbecause BigBand i s no t e n t i t l e d t o any damages from t h e f u t u r ep r o d u c t s . ( 0 . 1 . 167 a t 12.)

The Cour t concludes t h a t t h e source code o f Imagine 's f u t u r eproducts i s d i s c o v e r a b l e because it i s r e a s o n a b l y l i k e l y t o l e a dt o evidence r e l e v a n t t o BigBand's inf r ingement c l a i m s . See Fed.R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (1) (" [p ] a r t i e s may o b t a in d is co ve ry r eg a r di n g anyn o n p r i v i l e g e d m a t t e r t h a t i s r e l e v a n t t o any p a r t y ' s claim o rdefense" as long as t h e information sought i s r e a s o n a b l yc a l c u l a te d t o l e a d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f a dm i s si b le evidence)F u r t h e r , p r o d u c t s which have not y e t been r e l e a s e d f o r s a l e t oconsumers may still be found t o i n f r i n g e . See 35 U.S.C. 271(a) ("whoever withou t a u t h o r i t y makes, uses , o f f e r s t o s e l l , o rs e l l s any p a t e n t e d i n v e n t i o n . i n f r i n g e s t h ep a t e n t " ) (emphasis added); see a l s o Moore U.S.A. I n c . v. Standard .R e g i s t e r Co., 144 F. Supp. 2d 188, 196 (W.O.N.Y. 2001) (" The meremanufacture o f a p a t e n t e d a r t i c l e , without s a l e , i s s u f f i c i e n t t oc r e a t e an i n f r i n g e m e n t . " ) . Accordingly , t h e Cour t concludes t h a tt h e source code o f Imagine 's f u t u r e products i s d i s c o v e r a b l e .

B. The Production o f Source Code: Commercialized Products

With r e s p e c t t o commercial ized p r o d u c t s , t h e p a r t i e sacknowledge t h a t t h e source code i s d i s c o v e r a b l e . The only i s s u ei s whether Imagine has p r o p e r l y complied with i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o

3

8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

5/8

produce t h i s data . Imagine contends t h a t it produced th e sourcecode fo r i t s discoverab le products : t h ree ve r s i ons (1 .0 , 2 .0 , and2.1) of th e ICE Broadcast System and one ve r s i on (1.0) of the ICESV Processor . (0 .1 . 167 a t 5.) BigBand contends t h a t th e l i s t edproduct ion i s incomple te because (1) t he re a re holes o r gaps inth e code, and (2) deposi t ion tes t imony i nd i ca t e s t h a t t he re a readd i t iona l vers ions of the ICE Broadcast System fo r which th esource code has not been produced. (0 .1 . 180 a t 2-3 . )

The Cour t i s not persuaded t h a t any spaces or gaps in thesource code produced i s ind ica t ive of an incomple te product ion .(See 0 .1 . 169, Gutman Decl. ~ 10-12 ( s ta t ing t h a t the codedisc losed was produced in complete vers ions and in th e mannerused by Imagine) . ) However, th e Cour t concludes t h a t add i t iona lproduct ion regarding source code fo r the ICE Broadcast System i swarranted . In h is deposi t ion , Mr. Pr i tesh spec i f i c a l l yi d en t i f i ed th ree d i f f e ren t vers ions of th e ICE Broadcast systemt h a t have apparen t ly been re leased , vers ions 2 .2 , 2 .3 , and 2.3 .1(a /k /a 3 .0 .1 ) , but not disc losed to BigBand. (0 .1 . 182, GravesDecl . Ex. 1 a t 55.) Im agine ha s not exp la ined why theseadd i t iona l vers ions are not sub jec t to d is co ve ry , andaccord ing ly , th e Cour t wi l l order Imagine to produce source codecover ing th e ICE Broadcast System vers ions l i s t ed by Mr. Pr i tesh .

c. Written Discovery RequestsBigBand contends t h a t Imagine has not proper ly r ep l i ed to

4

8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

6/8

In te r roga to r ies Nos. 14, 15, and 17 and Document Reques t No. 87.In res po nse , Imagine contends t h a t it has completely responded tothe r eques t s , which it cons iders vague and overbroad.a t 6-8.)2

In genera l , In t e r roga to ry Nos. 14 and 15 r eques t

(0 .1 . 167

i d en t i f i c a t i on o f a l l video compression and video networkingtechnology t h a t Im agine has "made t e s t ed , l i c ensed , so ld , of fe redfo r l i c ense , p r of fe red fo r s a l e . " (0 .1 . 161, Yung Decl . Ex. 6 .)In t e r roga to ry No. 17 r eques t s i d en t i f i c a t i on of "each execu tab lecomputer sof tware component or runt ime environment componentcrea ted , developed o r adapted fo r use" with th e video compress ionor v id eo te ch no lo gy i d en t i f i ed in I nte rr og ato ry Nos. 14 and 15.(Id. ) Fina l ly , Document Request No. 87 seeks to have th e sourcecode f i l e s fo r a l l modules i d en t i f i ed in In t e r roga to ry No. 17produced o r made ava i l ab le fo r i n spec t ion . (I d. Ex. 7 .)

Given th e fac t t h a t Imagine, desp i t e i t s ob jec t ions ,proper ly i d en t i f i ed i t s commercia l ized products in re sponse toIn t e r roga to ry Nos. 14 and 15 (see id . Ex. 6 ) , th e Cour t concludest h a t those i n t e r roga to r i e s a re not impermiss ib ly vague o rambiguous. Fur ther , th e Court concludes t h a t Imagine ' s re sponses

2Imagine add i t i ona l l y argues t h a t BigBand d id not proper lycomply with Local Rule 7 .1 .1 . (0 .1 . 167 a t 7 .) However, in l i g h to f BigBand's Cer t i f i c a t e of Compliance (0 .1 . 159) and i t srep re sen ta t ions t h a t it at tempted to re so lve th e i n s t an tdiscovery problems, th e Cour t concludes t h a t BigBand prope r l ycomplied with th e L ocal R ules.

5

8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

7/8

8/9/2019 BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Comms. Inc., C.A. No. 07-351-JJF (D. Del. July 20, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

8/8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BIGBAND NETWORKS, INC.,P l a i n t i f f ,

v.IMAGINE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant .

C i v i l Action No. 0 7 - 3 5 l - J J F

ORDER

At Wilmington, t h i s ~ d a y o f J u l y 2010, f o r t h e reasons s e tf o r t h i n t h e Memorandum Opinion i s s u e d t h i s d a t e ;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t h a t P l a i n t i f f BigBandNetworks, I n c . ' s Motion To Compel Source Code And F u r t h e rResponses To Writ ten Discovery (0 .1 . 159) i s GRANTED.

DISTRICT