Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00016-JJF Document 55 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NOKIA CORPORATION and )
NOKIA, lNC., )
l
Plaintiffs, )
) C.A. No. ()5—l6—J5F
v. )
l
lNTERDIGlTAL COMMUNICATIONS )
CORPORATION and INTERDIGHAL l
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, )
l
Defendants. )
FIRST DISCOVERY ORDER
The Special Master, having considered the submissions ofthe parties on
InterDig,ital Communication Corporation’s and lnterdigital Technology Corporations
(collectively “InterDigital") motion to compel supplementation of Nokia Corporation’s
and Nokia, lnc.’s (collectively °‘Nokia") Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(l) initial
disclosures, it is ordered as follows:
l. InterDigital has illed a motion to compel supplementation of Nokia’s
F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(l) initial disclosures. lt claims that Nokia has failed to identify with the
required specificity the "individuals likely to have discoverable information that the
disclosing party may use to support its claim or defense? Although Nokia has identitied
several individuals in its supplemental initial disclosures,} lnterDigital claims that there
must be additional individuals with personal knowledge of statements allegedly made by
lnterDigital that support Nokia’s Lanham Act claim. InterDigital also claims that Nokia
a Nokia served its initial disclosures on March 3 l, 2006. lnterDigitai conferred with Nokia about alleged
deticiencies in Nokia’s initial disclosures, and Nokia served supplemental initial disclosures on April 21,
2096.

Case 1:05-cv-00016-JJF Document 55 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 2 of 4
did not provide either the basis or theory for its damage clairn, as allegedly required by
F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(l)(C), and should be ordered to supplement this disclosure as vvell.
2. Nokia responds that its supplemental disclosures are sufficient for the
early stages of this litigation because it has provided "basic" information from the
information it has to date. Nokia also asserts that its Lanham Act claims are based on
allegedly false statements about the applicability of lnterDigital’s patents to 3G wireless
standards. Therefore Nokia identified individuals involved with the prosecution of the
underlying interDigital patents, including the inventors, as vvell as InterDigital employees
who made comments on lnterl)igital’s patent portfolio. Because the allegedly false
statements underpinning the Lanham Act claim were made by lnterDigital
representatives, Nokia also identified six lnterDig·itai directors, officers, or employees.
Regarding Nol that its damage claims vvill be the subject of expert discovery and reports, and therefore it
is premature to respond to this initial disclosure.
3. The duty to provide initial disclosures is not co—extensive with the duty to
respond to interrogatories and document requests. initial disclosures are just that — initial.
A party must disclose the basic information it has for each ofthe categories set forth in
Rule .26(a)(l). The initial disclosures should contain sufficient information to direct
formal discovery in an efficient manner. See Seifv. Equifon Enters., LLC, 2005 WL
3763533 (ED. Mo. 2005)(initial disclosures are intended to supply basic information).
With regard to damage information, where the calculation will be the subject of expert
reports and testimony, it is appropriate to defer damages calculations to a later time in the
proceedings. 6 James Wm. Moore et al, Moore ’s Federal Practice § 26.22[4l[c][ii] (3d
2

Case 1:05-cv-00016-JJF Document 55 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 3 of 4
ed. 2005). After reviewing Nol they are spartan, but meet the minimum initial disclosure requirements. Nokia’s
disclosures appear to provide the basic infomation required by Rule 2o(a)(l), and
defening detailed damages disclostires and infonnation is appropriate where as here
damages will be the siibj ect of expert testimony. Therefore lnterBigital’s motion is
denied.
4. Although l have denied lr1terDigital’s rnotion, given this initial sl<.irmish l
fully anticipate disputes over discovery relating to the basis for Noi claims. Therefore, to assist the parties with their discovery obligations, l order the
following actions (which are supplemental to, and not in place of. any existing discovery
requests and responses served and answered by the parties):
A. On or before June 30, 2006, Nokia shall provide verified responses
to the following questions: Paragraph til} of the January l2, 2005 complaint states that
"lnterDigital has repeatedly niade public statements that its patent portfolio covers the
practice of3G wireless phone systems and the sale of 3G compliant products? Nokia
shall identify separately (a) each public statement that it relies upon for this allegation,
(b) the date of the public statement, and (c) the identity of anyone who made the
statement. For each public statement, Nokia shall also provide a detailed response why
each statement is false.
B. On or before July i4, 2006, lnterljigital shall provide verified
responses to the following questions: lnterDigital shall identify separately (a) each public
statement it has made regarding its patent portfolio and whether the portfolio covers the
3

Case 1:05-cv-00016-JJF Document 55 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 4 of 4
practice of 3G wireless piiome systems and the sale of 3G compliant products, (b) the date
of the public statement, and Co) the identity of anyone who made the statement.
5. The Special Master shall be served with the foregoing responses to ensure
that the responses are es complete as possible.
E 7 Q V Q
Dated: June 12, 2006 C@~"m 5 /§/EJ 3 ts
Speciei Maste i 3
4