Plaintiff was entitled to "technical reports, process flows, and recipes sufficient to show the process [defendant] uses to form semiconductor contacts in its processor products" even though plaintiff's preliminary infringement contentions did not accuse defendant's processors of infringing the patent-in-suit. "Some district courts have found that in patent cases, 'the scope of discovery may include products and services reasonably similar to those accused in the preliminary infringement contentions' . . . Here, [plaintiff] contends that it discovered during a recent deposition that [defendant's] processors use the same process for making semiconductor contacts as the accused memory products. Under [plaintiff's] theory, the products are reasonably similar insofar as the processes for forming semiconductor contacts. . . . The Court agrees with [plaintiff] that its failure to specifically accuse the processor products is not dispositive as [defendant] had notice that [plaintiff] accused what is purportedly the same process in a different product."
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., 3-08-cv-00986
(CAND June 24, 2009, Order) (Illston, J.)