RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156378

Summary

A manufacturer's motion to compel disclosures was granted where the patent holder did not adequately specify the priority date to which asserted claim alleged was entitled, and thus did not comply with N.D. Cal. Pat. R. 3-1(f). The disclosure also did not comply with N.D. Cal. Pat. R. 3-1(b) as it did not specifically identify each accused product at issue. The disclosure also did not comply with N.D. Cal. Pat. R. 3-1(c) or (d).