Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

June 6, 2017

RAYTHEON COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
CRAY, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ROY S. PAYNE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Cray's Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Testimony [Dkt. # 105] is before the Court. Initially, Cray moved the Court to compel Raytheon to designate a witness with knowledge of certain topics identified in Cray's September 2016 Rule 30(b)(6) notice. Cray later narrowed the scope of relief it finds sufficient to 30(b)(6) testimony on one topic: Why certain Cray systems were not disclosed to the USPTO during prosecution of the asserted patents. Hr'g Tr. (Feb. 9, 2017) 45:6-11. For simplicity, the Court refers to this topic as Topic 16.[1]

         The Court GRANTS Cray's Motion [Dkt. # 105] with respect to Topic 16 and, in light of Cray's narrowing of the scope of relief it seeks, DENIES the remainder of Cray's Motion as MOOT.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In September 2016, Cray served Raytheon with a Rule 30(b)(6) notice partly directed to the asserted patents. Kohm Decl. [Dkt. # 105-1] ¶ 2. Specifically, Cray sought Raytheon's testimony concerning (1) the development and patenting of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents (Topics 2, 6, 7, 16, and 17), and (2) prior art related to the asserted patents (Topics 15-19). Id. ¶ 3.

         Initially, Raytheon refused to provide a corporate witness for these topics. Raytheon claimed (1) the topics were better suited for other types of discovery, and (2) discovery on the topics was cumulative given that Raytheon had already provided detailed responses to Cray's interrogatories on these issues. Stringfield Decl. [Dkt. # 115-1] ¶ 9; see also Kohm Decl. [Dkt. # 105-1] ¶ 5.

         Eventually-and after Cray filed its motion-Raytheon provided Mark White to testify on these topics on its behalf. Stringfield Decl. [Dkt. # 115-1] ¶ 4. But after White's deposition, Cray refused to withdraw its motion as moot because it claimed White was not adequately prepared to testify. See, e.g., Hr'g Tr. (Feb. 9, 2017) 34:20-35:5. As an example, Cray referred to this testimony concerning its Red Storm system:

Q. Let me ask you this: As Raytheon's witness on this topic, --
A. Yes, sir.
Q.--knowledge of the prior art, reasons for disclosing or not disclosing prior art to the patent office, do you have any affirmative testimony to provide regarding Raytheon's reasons for not disclosing Red Storm?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. We would have disclosed it had we thought it was material and had access to that material.
Q. And who did you talk to to support that position?
A. No, that's our standard company policy.
Q. All right. But you didn't talk to anyone involved in the actual prosecution of the '909 patent to make that statement?
A. No, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.