Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`ARIGNA TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`
`
`DISCOVERY DISPUTE ORDER
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-CV-01045-ADA
`
`
`
`The Court hereby resolves the following discovery dispute submitted by email.
`
`Summary of the Issue
`
`Arigna:
`
`Whether the Court should grant Arigna leave to issue pre-Markman subpoenas to third parties to
`
`obtain circuit schematics for accused instrumentalities.
`
`Google:
`
`Whether the Court should follow its OGP and deny pre-Markman domestic discovery for both
`
`parties, or alternatively, grant all parties leave to issue pre-Markman subpoenas to third parties and
`
`permit the third party suppliers identified by Arigna to have access to Arigna’s unredacted
`
`infringement contentions.
`
`Requested Relief
`
`Arigna requests leave to serve subpoenas on five domestic third parties: Qualcomm Inc.;
`
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc.; Qorvo, Inc.; Murata Electronics North America, Inc.; and Universal
`
`Global Scientific Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`Google requests that the Court deny Arigna’s request; alternatively, Google requests that
`
`the Court grant pre-Markman third party discovery as to all parties, and permit the third party
`
`suppliers identified by Arigna access to Arigna’s unredacted infringement contentions.
`
`Arigna’s Position
`
`Arigna requests leave to serve subpoenas on third-party manufacturers of certain
`
`semiconductor devices used in Defendants’ Accused Products. Two exceptional circumstances
`
`warrant initiating this discovery before the Markman hearing on July 6, 2022.
`
`First, this third-party discovery is necessary to obtain core technical documents which are
`
`highly likely to be relevant for claim construction. Defendants served productions of technical
`
`documents on March 3, 2022, but those productions do not include any circuit schematics showing
`
`the internal operation of many of the semiconductor devices Arigna accuses.
`
`For example, Arigna asserts that the Accused Products infringe the ’343 Patent because
`
`they contain mmWave devices—made by various third parties—which incorporate the Qualcomm
`
`HG11-PG660-200 RF die. Notwithstanding Arigna’s contentions, Defendants’ productions do not
`
`contain any circuit schematics showing how the HG11-PG660-200 RF die operates. Rather,
`
`Samsung and Google have said they do not have such schematics and Apple has not committed to
`
`produce them. Accordingly, Arigna must obtain them from Qualcomm and the other
`
`manufacturers.
`
`Similarly, Arigna’s preliminary infringement contentions disclose Arigna’s theory that the
`
`Accused Products infringe the ’164 Patent by incorporating Qualcomm SDR865 transceivers. Yet
`
`Defendants have not produced circuit schematics sufficient to show the internal operation of the
`
`SDR865. Again, Samsung and Google have told Arigna that they have no further schematics to
`
`produce and Apple has made no offer to supplement.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`In sum, Arigna is simply trying to obtain the pre-Markman core technical documents to
`
`which it is entitled from Defendants, but which they have not produced. These documents are
`
`likely to be highly relevant to claim construction, and Arigna would be prejudiced if it were to
`
`obtain them only after the Markman hearing.
`
`Second, leave to serve these third-party subpoenas pre-Markman also is warranted because
`
`foreign discovery may ultimately be necessary to obtain the relevant circuit schematics. Two of
`
`the manufacturers Arigna seeks to subpoena—Murata Electronics North America, Inc. and
`
`Universal Global Scientific Industrial Co., Ltd.—are U.S. affiliates of foreign companies.
`
`Likewise, Qualcomm has foreign affiliates. If these third-parties insist that Arigna pursue foreign
`
`discovery to obtain their schematics, Arigna needs to start that process now to keep the case on
`
`schedule.
`
`Foreign discovery imposes burdens both on this Court (which must review and issue Hague
`
`requests) and foreign officials (which must effectuate them). Permitting Arigna to serve discovery
`
`on the domestic entities will allow Arigna to ascertain whether foreign discovery is required.
`
`Finally, a subpoena for core technical documents and circuit schematics will be no surprise
`
`to Qualcomm. It is already involved in these cases, having submitted declarations in support of
`
`both Apple’s and Google’s transfer motions.
`
`Google’s Position
`
`Google objects to Arigna’s premature request that seeks to unilaterally bypass the case
`
`schedule. The Order Governing Proceedings (“OGP”) explicitly states that absent “exceptional
`
`circumstances,” discovery shall not proceed before the Markman hearing: “Except with regard to
`
`venue, jurisdictional, and claim construction-related discovery, all other discovery shall be stayed
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/07/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`until after the Markman hearing” excerpt where “exceptional circumstances warrant.” OGP 4.0 at
`
`2.
`
`Nothing in Arigna’s request for third party discovery from Google’s domestic suppliers is
`
`“exceptional.” Suppliers are implicated in many patent cases before this Court and Arigna
`
`identifies nothing unique about its request. Arigna alleges that Qualcomm has “foreign affiliates,”
`
`but fails to show any connection between the unnamed “affiliates” and the requested documents.
`
`Arigna’s assertion that foreign discovery “may” become necessary at some point in the future is
`
`also insufficient to show that pre-Markman discovery is warranted here.
`
` In the event the Court grants Arigna’s request, Google submits that domestic third party
`
`pre-Markman discovery should be reciprocal and be permitted as to all parties—rather than limited
`
`to third parties of interest to just Arigna. A different result would be neither fair nor reasonable.
`
`Arigna provides no reason that only Arigna, and not Google, is entitled to such discovery.
`
`For example, Arigna claims that it is entitled to documents related to the Qualcomm
`
`components identified in its infringement contentions on the alleged basis that those documents
`
`“are likely to be highly relevant to claim construction.” If the Court credits Arigna’s claim, then
`
`Google should likewise be entitled to the third party documents identified in Arigna’s infringement
`
`contentions—e.g., the full TechInsights reports from which Arigna selected only portions to paste
`
`into its charts in its infringement contentions and which Arigna refused to produce, because those
`
`third party documents would also be highly relevant to claim construction.
`
`Google further requests that in the event Arigna is permitted to subpoena domestic third
`
`party suppliers, Google should be permitted to share Arigna’s unredacted infringement contentions
`
`with those third party suppliers. Indeed, Arigna’s position is internally inconsistent. On one hand,
`
`Arigna demands from the third party suppliers documents related to the accused components from
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/07/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`those third parties. On the other hand, Arigna refuses to grant access to the infringement
`
`contentions in which these very components are accused, purposely blocking the components’
`
`suppliers (and Google) from understanding the context and purpose for Arigna’s discovery
`
`requests, thereby making any third party discovery more inefficient and less productive. Should
`
`Arigna be given access to the third party supplier documents related to the accused components,
`
`those third party suppliers should be given access to the contentions in order to determine the
`
`specific circuits, features, and technical aspects of their components that Arigna is accusing.
`
`Resolution
`
`OGP 4.0 states, “if discovery outside the United States is contemplated, the Court is
`
`inclined to allow such discovery to commence before the Markman hearing.” Arigna argues that
`
`it needs leave to serve foreign Hague discovery to keep the case on schedule because the Court
`
`“must review and issue Hague requests.” Consistent with the OGP, the Court hereby GRANTS
`
`leave to all parties to serve pre-Markman foreign discovery via the Hague.
`
`The Court finds that Arigna’s remaining requests are related to its infringement
`
`contentions, not claim construction. Documents from present-day manufacturers are unlikely to
`
`inform the constructions of terms as of the priority date. The meanings of words in the asserted
`
`patents are unlikely to be defined in circuit schematics of the Qualcomm HG11-PG660-200 RF
`
`die. The Court hereby DENIES all other pre-Markman discovery sought by Arigna.
`
`Google requests that “in the event Arigna is permitted to subpoena domestic third party
`
`suppliers, Google should be permitted to share Arigna’s unredacted infringement contentions with
`
`those third party suppliers.” Because the Court does not grant pre-Markman domestic discovery,
`
`Google’s relief to share unredacted infringement contentions is MOOTED.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/07/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`SIGNED this 7th day of April, 2022.
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`