Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 7
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`W-21-CV-00331-ADA
`
`§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`IGT, IGT CANADA SOLUTIONS ULC,
` Plaintiffs
`
`-vs-
`
`ZYNGA INC.,
`
` Defendant
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to produce technical
`
`documents and source code “sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s). After
`
`considering the parties’ respective position statements submitted to the Court by email on
`
`February 7, 2022, and the parties’ oral argument on February 16, 2022, Plaintiffs’ Motion is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`IGT and IGT Canada Solutions ULC (collectively, “IGT” or Plaintiffs”) allege that
`
`Defendant Zynga Inc. (“Zynga” or “Defendant”) improperly withheld discovery for the majority
`
`of products identified in IGT’s preliminary infringement contentions. For each of the asserted
`
`patents, IGT’s preliminary infringement contentions identify infringing instrumentalities in
`
`Zynga’s gaming systems. IGT’s preliminary infringement contention charts correlate those
`
`instrumentalities with each asserted claim. IGT clarified that such charted products were
`
`“exemplary only” and “representative of and exhibit the same accused instrumentalities common
`
`to all” identified products. Zynga only produced technical information for the subset of
`
`exemplary products for which IGT included screenshots and withheld discovery on roughly 100
`
`1
`
`IGT EXHIBIT 2022
`Zynga v. IGT, IPR2022-00199
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 7
`
`other accused products. IGT requests that the Court compel Zynga to provide discovery for each
`
`product identified and accused in IGT’s contentions.
`
`IGT’s preliminary infringement contentions allege that Zynga infringes, for example,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089 by “performing in the United States Zynga’s gaming methods
`
`involving hardware and software for authorizing users to play Zynga’s various game offerings,
`
`such as Words With Friends, Words With Friends 2, Harry Potter: Puzzles & Spells, FarmVille,
`
`FarmVille 2, FarmVille 3, Zynga Poker, Hit It Rich! suits of slots games including, e.g., Mustang
`
`Money, Game of Thrones Slots Casino, Willy Wonka Slots, Wizard of Oz Slots, Black Diamond
`
`Casino slots, and other Zynga slots games, and other games listed in IGT_0004551 (Apple App
`
`Store), IGT_0004583 (Google Play Store), and/or IGT_0004424 (Zynga.com/games/) (the
`
`“Accused Methods”).” The documents IGT_0004551, IGT_0004583, and IGT_0004424
`
`collectively list roughly 100 other games (the “uncharted games”) that form the basis of this
`
`discovery dispute. Zynga refuses to produce discovery on the uncharted games because Zynga
`
`feels the uncharted games are not fairly represented and because IGT has not provided separate
`
`infringement contention charts that identify independent infringement theories.
`
`II.
`
`PARTY’S ARGUMENTS
`
`IGT seeks source code and other discovery for the roughly 100 uncharted games without
`
`individually charting each of the uncharted games. IGT contends that it needs discovery on the
`
`uncharted games before it can provide meaningful infringement contention charts.
`
`Zynga posits that Plaintiff must either separately chart each accused product or provide
`
`meaningful analysis explaining how multiple accused products presented supposedly operate the
`
`in the representative manner. Zynga argues that IGT has not met either burden. Zynga further
`
`argues that the uncharted games are materially different from the charted games.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 7
`
`To illustrate its argument, Zynga uses an example of “airplane mode games.” Some
`
`asserted claims require communication between a server and a mobile device. IGT alleges that
`
`both the charted games and uncharted games perform the claimed communication. But Zynga
`
`contends that many of the uncharted games are played without any communication with a server,
`
`which IGT can confirm by playing the game on a device in airplane mode. According to Zynga,
`
`these differences arose because different programmers from independent groups independently
`
`developed the allegedly represented games to work in independent ways. Because of the
`
`different, non-representative implementation techniques, Zynga argues IGT must either
`
`demonstrate the difference in the implementation techniques does not affect its infringement
`
`theories or explain its basis for contending that every accused product uses the same
`
`implementation technique.
`
`Zynga argues for proceeding in one of two ways, neither of which include discovery on
`
`the roughly 100 uncharted products. First, Zynga proposes that if IGT believes multiple games
`
`infringe for the same reason—for example, by using the same Zynga back end service to carry
`
`out the accused functionality—then IGT should provide a chart disclosing that theory. But,
`
`Zynga argues, IGT would need no additional discovery because Zynga already produced that
`
`code. Second, if IGT believes Zynga’s games infringe because of game-specific functionality,
`
`IGT must provide contentions explaining how each allegedly infringes. Zynga therefore argues it
`
`should not be compelled to produce the source code for the games for which IGT has not
`
`disclosed an infringement theory and that any such production would be unduly burdensome.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court “adheres to a policy of liberal discovery.” Bright Sols., Inc. v. Tire Seal, Inc.,
`
`No. 5:06CV247, 2008 WL 11347983, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2008). This request comes at the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 7
`
`preliminary infringement stage. Unlike WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen)
`
`Co., the Court is not merging the preliminary and final infringement deadlines. 2022 WL
`
`174517, at *2–3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022). Indeed, a higher standard of detailing claim charts
`
`with specific descriptions of how each product is represented by a single charted product applies
`
`to a plaintiff’s final infringement contentions. But at the preliminary infringement contention
`
`stage, a plaintiff need only illustrate that the additional uncharted products are “reasonably
`
`similar” to those specifically charted and accused in the preliminary infringement contentions.
`
`Stambler v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 13196261, at *3 (E.D. Tex.
`
`May 13, 2011); see also Nichia Corp. v. Feit Elec. Co., Inc., No. CV 20-359-GW-EX, 2020 WL
`
`7264546, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) (“A plaintiff need only provide enough information to
`
`permit a reasonable inference that all accused products infringe.”) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`Here, IGT met the reasonably similar standard, but only barely so. The uncharted games
`
`are all run by Zynga and alleged to work in the same way, and the accused communication to
`
`servers remains unrebutted by Zynga’s arguments or any evidence. Thus, the Court agrees with
`
`IGT: Zynga cannot refuse to comply with discovery just because Zynga believes it does not
`
`infringe.
`
`Zynga argues that the uncharted products cannot be reasonably similar to an exemplary
`
`charted product based on material differences such as the ability of some uncharted games to
`
`operate without any claimed communication to a server by operating in airplane mode. Zynga
`
`argues that this difference requires Plaintiff to either demonstrate the difference does not affect
`
`its infringement theories or show that the accused products use the same implementation
`
`technique.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 7
`
`Despite Zynga’s argument, the Court finds it is reasonable, at this stage, that the
`
`uncharted games that can function in airplane mode may nonetheless infringe when not in
`
`airplane mode. The Court also discounts Zynga’s argument due to lack of evidentiary support
`
`(e.g., a declaration or technical document showing that certain games never communicate with a
`
`server). Such evidence sits at heart of the discovery that Plaintiffs seek in order to provide more
`
`detailed final infringement contentions explaining why products are fairly represented. Thus, the
`
`Court finds it appropriate to order such discovery and reject reliance on Zynga’s unilateral
`
`argument that products are not fairly represented. The Court notes that plaintiffs should exhaust
`
`publicly available information in providing preliminary infringement contentions. But even if
`
`Zynga is correct that products are not fairly represented, Plaintiff is still entitled to discovery to
`
`verify it when such information is not publicly available. Because the accused products remain
`
`“reasonably similar” after considering Zynga’s positions, Zynga must provide the requested
`
`discovery.
`
`Defendant also alleges that the requested discovery is unduly burdensome. The Court
`
`finds other remedies more appropriate than denial of discovery.
`
`First, the parties can meet and confer to place the accused products in multiple
`
`representative buckets. For example, Zynga argues that the games that are playable in “airplane”
`
`mode fall into a separate representative bucket. Zynga could identify all games that fall into this
`
`bucket and provide discovery on one or two exemplary games, such as a game chosen by each
`
`party. After gathering discovery, the parties might agree that games in the “airplane” mode
`
`bucket do not infringe and drop such products from the case. If the parties continue to disagree
`
`about the infringement of products in the “airplane” mode bucket, then Plaintiffs, now armed
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/01/22 Page 6 of 7
`
`with discovery of one or two exemplary airplane mode products, can chart its representative
`
`infringement contentions for all products in that bucket.
`
`Second, if Plaintiffs fail to cooperate and work toward smaller, more reasonable
`
`representative buckets and continue to insist that all products in a large bucket operate in the
`
`same way, then Defendant may stipulate to the representation and produce discovery on one
`
`representative product of Defendant’s choice (in addition to discovery on fairly charted
`
`products). A defendant will naturally select a representative product that is least likely to infringe
`
`and hold an uncooperative plaintiff to its own allegation that all other uncharted products operate
`
`in the same way. To avoid this, a plaintiff may either cooperate and work toward smaller, more
`
`reasonable representative buckets, initially chart more products under independent infringement
`
`theories, or chart contentions based on smaller, more reasonably representative buckets.
`
`Last, Defendant can seek alternative relief. The Court’s discovery procedure limited
`
`Defendant to a 500-word argument, which may not have permitted Defendant to fully articulate
`
`its basis for relief or submit the necessary evidence. A defendant may file a motion to dismiss
`
`certain products from the case if the defendant believes those contentions are not plausible. A
`
`defendant may file a motion for sanctions if the discovery is sought for an improper purpose such
`
`as needlessly increasing the cost of litigation, if a plaintiff’s contentions lack a good faith basis,
`
`if a plaintiff engages in discovery abuse, or if a Plaintiff fails to conduct a reasonable pre-suit
`
`inquiry. A defendant may move for a protective order under Rule 26 if the burden or expense of
`
`the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Alternatively, the Defendant here may expedite
`
`representative discovery, for example by producing full discovery on airplane mode products,
`
`before filing an early motion for summary judgment with evidentiary support. But, given the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/01/22 Page 7 of 7
`
`current record, the Court believes that Plaintiffs have done enough to warrant the requested
`
`discovery.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ discovery request is GRANTED. Zynga
`
`is ORDERED to provide discovery for each product identified and accused in IGT’s contentions
`
`or provide discovery of an exemplary product that Zynga stipulates is representative of the
`
`uncharted games.
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`7
`
`