Production of Defendant’s Licenses Within Asserted Patent’s Technology Field Denied as Overbroad

The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel the production of all settlement and license agreements for the same technology field as the accused products. "[Plaintiff] argues the license agreements are relevant to the second factor of the Georgia Pacific analysis which requires discussion of the rates paid by the licensee for the use of patents comparable to the patent-in-suit. . . . However, [plaintiff] provides no substantive support for this argument. Instead, it generally states that because certain license agreements are mentioned in [defendant's expert report from a prior lawsuit], they are relevant to the litigation. . . . [T]he Court finds this request for all patent license and settlement agreements for stent-graft technology to be overbroad. [Defendant] has already provided the documents related to the Accused Products."

Endotach LLC v. Cook Medical Incorporated, 1-13-cv-01135 (INSD May 16, 2014, Order) (LaRue, M.J.)