The court denied without prejudice defendant's emergency motion to compel plaintiff to produce license agreements. "[Defendant's] very sketchy motion to compel fails to persuade this Court, even under the liberal standard of Rule 26, that it should order [plaintiff] to produce documents relating to other [of its] owned patents subject to the vague limitation to 'comparable patents in the industry.'. . . If . . . [plaintiff] has produced actual license agreements, negotiated at arms- length, regarding the patents-in-suit, then that is the best evidence on which to establish a reasonable royalty rate. To the extent that [plaintiff] has not already disclosed all license agreements for the patents-in-suit, then it should do so. [Defendant] has not shown, however, that license agreements involving other patents are sufficiently relevant to be discoverable."
Bally Technologies, Inc. v. Business Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc., 2-10-cv-00440 (NVD August 30, 2011, Order) (Foley, Jr., M.J.)