throbber
Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA-DTG Document 106 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-1212-ADA
`
`v.
`
`NXP USA, Inc.,
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s June 17, 2021 Standing Order for Discovery Hearings in Patent
`
`Cases, August 29, 2022 oral order, and September 20, 2022 oral order, the parties Plaintiff Ocean
`
`Semiconductor LLC (“Ocean”) and Defendant NXP USA, Inc. (“NXP”) hereby jointly submit
`
`the following proposed order summarizing the nature of the parties’ September 20, 2022
`
`discovery dispute hearing (“Hearing”) and the parties’ understanding of the Court’s rulings.
`
`The Court heard argument from Ocean and NXP regarding the following four disputes:
`
`• Issue #1: Whether the Court should vacate the TSMC- and UMC-related relief orally
`
`granted at the August 29, 2022 hearing given that Plaintiff Ocean’s subsequent RPX
`
`settlement agreement means TSMC- and UMC-sourced NXP products are no longer
`
`accused products. For Issue #1, NXP sought the following relief:
`
`o “Vacate the TSMC- and UMC-related relief orally granted at the August 29, 2022
`
`hearing given that Plaintiff Ocean’s subsequent RPX settlement agreement means
`
`TSMC- and UMC-sourced NXP products are no longer accused products.”
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA-DTG Document 106 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`• Issue #2: Whether NXP should be compelled to produce: (1) documents covering
`
`licenses and agreements with NXP’s equipment manufacturers (“First Category”); (2)
`
`documents regarding its processes for manufacturing the accused products using ultra-
`
`thin resist (“Second Category”); and (3) NXP’s sales information for products NXP
`
`manufactures in its own fabs (“Third Category”). For Issue #2, Ocean sought the
`
`following relief:
`
`o “NXP must produce documents responsive to the First, Second, and Third Category
`
`of documents as well as the Preliminary Information by September 16, 2022 or within
`
`(3) three business days of the Court’s ruling, whichever is later.”
`
`• Issue #3: Whether NXP should be compelled to supplement its Interrogatory Responses
`
`Nos. 1-4, 7-11, and 13-14. For Issue #3, Ocean sought the following relief:
`
`o “NXP must supplement its responses to Ocean’s Interrogatory Nos. 1-4, 7-11, and 13-
`
`14 by September 16, 2022 or within (3) three business days of the Court’s ruling,
`
`whichever is later.”
`
`• Issue #4: Whether the scope of relief granted by the Court at the August 29, 2022,
`
`hearing on sales and financial information covers NXP products, including those
`
`manufactured by TSMC and UMC as well as products manufactured by NXP in its
`
`manufacturing facilities.
`
`o “The scope of relief granted by the Court at the August 29, 2022, hearing on sales and
`
`financial information is not limited to those products manufactured by TSMC and
`
`UMC, and that NXP must also produce sales and financial information on products
`
`NXP manufactures in its own fabs.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA-DTG Document 106 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated at the Hearing, the Court rules as follows:
`
`For Issue #1, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court will not withdraw its August 29,
`
`2022 oral order (“August 29 Order”), but the Court will MODIFY the order. The Court hereby
`
`modifies its August 29 Order, and it is hereby ORDERED that on or before October 4, 2022,
`
`NXP shall produce:
`
`(i) Sales information for any sales into or from the U.S. or products made in whole or part
`
`in the U.S. beginning December 31, 2014 for any NXP-manufactured wafer and any NXP
`
`product that contains or is made from an NXP-manufactured or unlicensed wafer; and (ii) TM
`
`numbers and UMC identifiers for any NXP product sold beginning December 31, 2014 that
`
`contains or is made from NXP or unlicensed wafers and wafers from either TSMC or UMC.
`
`NXP is not obligated to produce sales information for any NXP product that contains or is made
`
`from a TSMC- or UMC-manufactured wafer where such product sources wafers solely from
`
`licensed parties such as TSMC and UMC.
`
`For Issue #2:
`
`• As to the “First Category,” the Court DENIES Ocean’s request based on NXP’s
`
`representation that “they are producing and have been producing those
`
`agreements,” but it is hereby ORDERED that NXP substantially complete its
`
`production of licenses and agreements relating to Applied Materials by October 7,
`
`2022; and substantially complete production of licenses and agreements for all
`
`other equipment manufacturers by October 21, 2022;
`
`• As the “Second Category,” the Court DENIES Ocean’s motion to compel without
`
`prejudice;
`
`• As the “Third Category,” Ocean’s motion to compel the Third Category of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA-DTG Document 106 Filed 10/04/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`documents is MOOT as it is subsumed within Issue #1.
`
`For Issue #3, the Court DENIES Ocean’s motion to compel without prejudice. The
`
`parties are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Issue #3 after the production of sales data
`
`pursuant to Issue #1.
`
`For Issue #4, this issue is MOOT because it is subsumed within Issue #1.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The Honorable Judge Derek T. Gilliland
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket