United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a patent case. The patents in-suit are generally directed at
multi-camera vision systems installed in automobiles.
Plaintiff (Magna) has identified the following as paradigm
U.S. Patent No. 7, 859, 565 - Claims 45 and 46
U.S. Patent No. 7, 877, 175 - Claims 1 and 16
Doc. 46. The parties are engaged in contentious discovery.
Before the Court are several discovery motions. On April 26,
2018, the Court held a conference on the record to discuss
the motions and other discovery matters. This Memorandum
formalizes the Court's rulings.
Proceedings before the Exert Advisor and Expert Reports
Court referred to an Expert Advisor the parties dispute over
the use of email search terms. See Doc. 167. The
parties reported that proceedings before the Expert Advisor
are ongoing. As discussed at the conference, proceedings
before the Expert Advisor, including production of the emails
and any related depositions (not expert), shall be completed
by July 31, 2018.
reports shall be competed by September 15, 2018.
Valeo's Request for Sanctions re: Interrogatory 4 (Doc.
relates to Magna's responses to Valeo's Interrogatory
request 4 in which Valeo asked for identifications of the
portions of the specifications of the paradigm patens that
provide enablement and written description requirements. The
request is not the subject of a formal motion but rather, as
the Court requested, in the form of a proposed order with
responsive papers. See Docs. 170, 173, 177.
Court previously entered an order compelling Magna to provide
more precise responses. See Doc. 108 at Ex. A.
rounds of correspondence and telephone conferences, Magna
provided Valeo with a supplemental response which it says
complies with the Court's order. Valeo says that
Magna's supplemental response is still deficient and
sanctions - in the form of preventing Magna from offering
evidence that the specification of the ‘175 patent
“provides written description or enablement support for
‘a vehicle camera system that calibrates on onboard
camera in realtime using optical flow'” or that the
specification for the ‘565 patent “provides
written description or enablement support for ‘a
vehicle camera system that generates a 360-degree view or
surround view of the vehicle surroundings.'” Valeo
also asks that the jury be instructed that Magna's
failure to identify reasonably precise portions of the
‘175 and ‘565 patent as indicated above means the
jury may infer that the specifications do not have such
concedes that its requested form of sanction is evidentiary,
not monetary. The proper time to consider such a request is
after discovery is complete, after all pending motions have
been resolved, and the case ready for trial. Until such time,
Valeo's request is premature. As such, proceedings on the
matter are STAYED pending an application ...