Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al, No. 8:2007cv03012 - Document 1296 (D. Md. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 10/13/09. (rank, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (SOUTHERN DIVISION) TECHNOLOGY PATENTS LLC, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * CIVIL ACTION NO: AW-07-3012 * DEUTSCHE TELEKON AG, et al., * * Defendants. * ********* MEMORANDUM OPINION Before this Court is Plaintiff s Motion and Proposed Order Requiring AT&T Mobility to Produce Its Agreements with Foreign Carriers and Related Document (Docket Item No. 1228) and Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Defendants T-Mobile USA and Sprint Nextel Corporation to Identify and Produce Their Agreements with Foreign Carriers and Related Documents, and Supporting Memorandum (Docket Item No. 1248)(Plaintiff s Motions). The Court has Reviewed Plaintiff s Motions and all memoranda related thereto. No hearing is deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff s Motions. Plaintiff seeks Orders requiring Defendants AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile USA and Sprint Nextel Corporation (the Defendants ) to produce their agreements with foreign carriers. The Court is persuaded that the sought after agreements are discoverable despite the objections raised. While many foreign carriers have been dismissed from this case, the requested agreements are still reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the claims and defenses between the remaining litigants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The relevance of the existence and contents of these agreements is broader than the limited concerns asserted regarding personal jurisdiction. Equally true, redacting the identities of the carriers severely dilutes the proffered justification compelling disclosure, that is, to allow reasonable inquiry to confirm or dispel Plaintiff s claims for infringement and the calculation of damages. See BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F. 3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Rowe Int l Corp. v. Ecast, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ill. 2008); DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F. 3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006); and NTP Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F. 3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff s Motions are hereby GRANTED. A separate Order shall be entered by the Court. /s/ Charles B. Day United States Magistrate Judge October 13, 2009
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
