The court granted plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to produce settlement agreements regarding technology comparable to, but not covered by, the patents-in-suit, but denied the motion with respect to communications leading to those settlements. "While the Court agrees with [plaintiff] that [defendants'] VOIP patent licenses and settlement agreements are relevant to the determination of reasonable royalty calculation under the second and twelfth Georgia-Pacific factors, [plaintiff] has not adequately shown how [defendants'] settlement communications with. . . VOIP patent litigation defendants that led up to the VOIP patent licenses or agreements would be relevant. Although the Court previously found. . . that licensing communications between [plaintiff] and other third parties were relevant, those licensing communications were pertaining to the patents-in-suit rather than to comparable patents as sought here."
High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, et. al., 2-09-cv-02269 (KSD April 30, 2012, Order) (Waxse, M.J.)