`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD, and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Samsung’s Motion to Compel Production of Unredacted Copy of
`
`Slyde’s Patent Purchase Agreement (Dkt. No. 73), which came on for hearing on August 16, 2024.
`
`After considering the briefing and conducting an in camera review of the unredacted Patent
`
`Purchase Agreement (the redacted copy of which is in the record at Dkt. No. 73-1), the motion is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Plaintiff does not contend that the entire entire Patent Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) is
`
`protected by the work product doctrine.1 Rather, Plaintiff argues that portions of the PPA
`
`“pertaining to litigation funding and the conduct of anticipated litigation” are properly redacted.
`
`Plaintiff contends that it intended to assert the patents in litigation, so the PPA was prepared in
`
`anticipation of litigation. The leading treatise notes that “The focus is on whether specific
`
`materials were prepared in the ordinary course of business, or were principally prompted by the
`
`prospect of litigation.” 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2024 at 510-
`
`
`1 The doctrine is rooted in Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A): “Ordinarily, a party may not
`discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by
`or for another party or its representative …”.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/17/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1050
`
`11. The Fifth Circuit has held that “litigation need not be imminent … as long as the primary
`
`motivating purpose behind the creation of the document was to aid in possible future litigation.”
`
`U.S. v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530, 542 (5th Cir. 1982). It is not sufficient that there be a prospect
`
`of litigation, the document at issue must be prepared because of that prospect.
`
`In this case, the PPA was clearly prepared in the ordinary course of the business of Plaintiff
`
`for the purpose of acquiring ownership of scores of patents, not just the handful asserted in this
`
`case. The provisions that Plaintiff has redacted concerning funding deal with funding the entire
`
`purchase of the patents, not just this or any other specific litigation. Thus, even setting to one side
`
`the issue of whether any immunity from discovery was waived by disclosure of the document
`
`to unrelated parties, the PPA does not qualify for work product protection.
`
`Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted and Plaintiff is directed to provide
`
`Defendants' counsel promptly with an unredacted copy of the PPA, with an appropriate indication
`
`of the status afforded it under the Protective Order.
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
