`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`DELL INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`6:21-cv-00933-ADA
`
`ORDER GRANTING EARLY DISCOVERY
`
`Came on for consideration this date is Plaintiff MyPAQ Holdings Ltd.’s Request for Early
`
`Discovery. After careful consideration of the Motion, the Parties’ arguments, and the applicable
`
`law, the Court will ORDER early discover as indicated below.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`On September 10, 2021, MyPAQ filed a patent infringement complaint against Dell
`
`Technologies, Inc. and Dell Inc. (collectively, “Dell”), accusing it of infringing two patents
`
`through the manufacture, use, and sale of power adapters and converters. See ECF No. 22.
`
`On January 20, 2022, MyPAQ and Dell approached the Court with a discovery dispute.
`
`Fact discovery had not yet opened at that point and is still not open. On January 26, 2022, the
`
`Court heard oral argument from MyPAQ and Dell (the “Parties”) on that dispute (the “First
`
`Hearing”). MyPAQ requested the following discovery, which Dell refused to give:
`
`1. documents sufficient to show the Dell devices made by each
`Taiwanese manufacturer;
`
`2. documents sufficient to show the number of devices sold to Dell
`by each manufacturer and the amount Dell paid for those
`devices;
`
`3.
`
`the contact information for Dell’s primary liaison at each
`manufacturer; and
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2006
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`4. all the OEM/Purchase Agreements with each manufacturer.
`
`During that hearing, the Court granted Dell’s requested relief and indicated it would issue
`
`an order to that effect. Before the Court could do so, a dispute arose between the Parties as to the
`
`scope and timing of the ordered discovery. On February 7, 2022, MyPAQ sent the Court an
`
`amended list of information it was seeking from Dell. Specifically, it requested, “[f]or each foreign
`
`OEM manufacturer/supplier of fast charging devices (‘FCDs’)”:
`
`1. documents sufficient to identify each FCD supplied to Dell by
`each foreign manufacturer/supplier;
`
`2. documents or information sufficient to show the number of each
`of the FCDs sold to Dell by each foreign manufacturer/supplier;
`
`3. documents or information sufficient to disclose the amount Dell
`paid for each FCD supplied
`to Dell from a foreign
`manufacturer/supplier on a per unit and cumulative basis;
`
`4.
`
`the contact information for Dell’s primary liaison at each foreign
`manufacturer/supplier of FCDs; and
`
`foreign
`each
`5. All OEM/Purchase Agreements with
`manufacturer/supplier of FCDs (“Agreements”), including any
`appendices, schedules, exhibits or amendments.
`
`On February 11, 2022, the Court held oral argument on MyPAQ’s amended requests (the “Second
`
`Hearing”).
`
`A.
`
`Opening Discovery Early
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`This Court appreciates the hurdles and delay attending discovery in China, Taiwan, and
`
`many other foreign countries. MyPAQ represented, without opposition from Dell, that a good
`
`portion of the discovery in this Action will come from Dell’s manufacturers abroad, primarily in
`
`Taiwan. The Court does not wish discovery in Taiwan to govern the pace at which this Action will
`
`proceed. Any hope of avoiding that scenario means allowing MyPAQ to proceed promptly with
`
`discovery from Dell. With that party discovery, MyPAQ can undertake the letters rogatory gauntlet
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2006
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`armed with tailored discovery requests for Dell’s foreign manufacturers. Accordingly, MyPAQ is
`
`granted its request for early discovery.
`
`B.
`
`Discovery Requests
`
`MyPAQ is seeking documents sufficient to show the Dell devices made by each
`
`manufacturer. MyPAQ conceded at the First Hearing that Dell produced technical specifications,
`
`in accord with the initial-disclosure requirement, but Dell limited that production to the product
`
`numbers MyPAQ’s Complaint expressly accuses. MyPAQ argued that it needs information on
`
`other Dell devices from Dell’s foreign manufacturers because “if we find out later that there are
`
`other products that have similar circuitry or design that they haven’t told us about, we’d have to
`
`go back to the manufacturer then to get the discovery.” First Hearing Tr., ECF No. 35, at 11:24–
`
`12:2. The Court is receptive to that argument.
`
`At the Second Hearing, MyPAQ narrowed its request to simply all FCDs from Dell’s
`
`manufacturers. Dell indicated that it does not know what the term “FCD” means and thus
`
`MyPAQ’s discovery request has an uncertain scope. MyPAQ then suggested that its request could
`
`be broadened to all charging devices and, as a practical matter, “the vast majority of them are going
`
`to be fast-charging devices because that’s what consumers demand.”
`
`The Court finds this request likely to produce evidence relevant to infringement. The Court
`
`finds that limiting the request to “charging devices” does not produce the same ambiguity as FCD.
`
`The Court will also, however, limit this request to the three Taiwanese vendors Dell and MyPAQ
`
`have specifically identified. It will also limit the request in time. These limitations sufficiently
`
`diminish the burden on Dell.
`
`MyPAQ also made similar requests as to the quantity and price of the charging devices, as
`
`well as OEM agreements related thereto. This information is at least relevant to damages. The
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2006
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`Court will place the same vendor and time limitations on these requests, finding that this
`
`sufficiently reduces the burden on Dell.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`It is therefore ORDERED that Dell produce:
`
`1. documents sufficient to identify each charging device supplied
`to
`Dell
`by
`the
`three
`identified
`Taiwanese
`manufacturer(s)/supplier(s);
`
`2. documents or information sufficient to show the number of each
`of the charging devices sold to Dell by each identified
`manufacturer/supplier;
`
`3. documents or information sufficient to disclose the amount Dell
`paid for each charging device supplied to Dell from the
`identified manufacturers/suppliers on a per unit and cumulative
`basis;
`
`4. the contact information for Dell’s primary liaison at each
`identified manufacturer/supplier; and
`
`identified
`each
`5. All OEM/Purchase Agreements with
`manufacturer/supplier (the “Agreement(s)”), including any
`appendices, schedules, exhibits or amendments.
`
`The relevant period for this discovery is from September 10, 2015 to the present (the
`
`“Period”), and any Agreements that cover sales during the Period should be included even if the
`
`execution date for that Agreement is earlier than the Period.
`
`Dell is ORDERED to produce this discovery on a rolling basis and as fast as practicably
`
`possible. Dell has been on notice since at least the First Hearing that the Court was going to order
`
`this type of discovery. Dell’s counsel represented at the Second Hearing that it was already in the
`
`process of gathering the relevant information. Dell has little excuse for delay. The Parties are
`
`instructed to provide a status update via email to this Court’s clerk two weeks from the date of this
`
`Order.
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2006
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`SIGNED this 24th day of February, 2022.
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`MyPAQ, Exhibit 2006
`IPR2022-00311
`Page 5 of 5
`
`