Judge Fallon denies plaintiff’s motion to compel cross-production of defendants’ licenses

Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon recently considered plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to cross-produce their Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) Licenses across the six related cases filed by plaintiff.  Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 15-542-SLR-SRF, et al. (D. Del. July 26, 2017).  The protective order in these cases permitted cross-production of defendants’ confidential information only with the express written consent of the defendants.  Id. at 3.  Plaintiff argued that the licenses were relevant to the related cases because they provide “industry data about the value of the LTE standard generally, as well as the value of individual patents essential to the standard.”  Id. at 5.  Defendants, on the other hand, argued that “broad, third-party portfolio license agreements are not relevant or proportional to the analysis of a FRAND royalty rate because they do not involve the same patents-in-suit, parties, or accused products.”  Id.  Judge Fallon agreed with defendants and denied the motion, finding that “the relevance of the LTE license agreements to the calculation of damages is not sufficiently proportional to the needs of the case, given the highly confidential nature of the LTE license agreements and the harm that could result from the dissemination of the license agreements.”  Id.  Moreover, “the license agreements sought by [plaintiff] do not cover the patents-in-suit or the accused products” and so, “provide little insight as to the value of the specific patents-in-suit in the present case to the LTE standard.”  Id. at 5-6.

Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-542-SLR-SRF


%d bloggers like this: