Nuance Communications, Inc. originally filed suit for patent infringement against Vlingo Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas but the case was transferred to D. Mass. and is pending before Judge Zobel. One remnant from the transfer is the parties’ previous adherence to the E.D. Tex. Local Patent Rules including 3-4 which sets forth the required document production accompanying invalidity contentions. Nuance argues that Vlingo’s production under the rule is incomplete. Nuance also took issue with Vlingo’s responses to interrogatories, which Vlingo answered by referring to its hundreds of paper pages of source code. Nuance complains that the source code is unusable to determine the functionality of Vlingo’s product and moves for further information.
Judge Zobel denied the motion with respect to the Rule 3-4 production, accepting the representation of Vlingo’s counsel that defendant had fully complied. But she granted the motion to compel with regard to the interrogatory answers noting that it is much easier for Vlingo to provide a description of its product than it is for Nuance to divine the operation from the source code.
Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Vlingo Corp., 09-11414-RWZ (D.
Comments