Friday, May 4, 2012

Defendant Ordered to Produce Settlement Agreements for Comparable Technology, but not Communications Leading to Settlements

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.)

No comments: