CG Technology Development, LLC v. 888 Holdings PLC, 2:16-cv-00856

Plaintiffs (CG Technology Development, Interactive Games Limited, Interactive Games LLC) are subsidiaries/affiliates whose patents are centrally managed and monetized by Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and related Cantor entities.
Cantor Fitzgerald attorneys sent pre-suit letters alleging patent infringement, which led to these consolidated actions against Defendants (888 Holdings and Bwin.Party entities).
During discovery Defendants served joint RFPs and requests for admission; Plaintiffs withheld documents, stating many responsive materials were held by other Cantor affiliates (not by the named plaintiffs).
Plaintiffs previously represented in filings and produced some materials that discovery requests “route to and from the same channels,” and asserted common patent administration across the Cantor entities.
Defendants moved to compel: (1) production of Cantor-affiliate documents concerning corporate structure, prior litigation over the 818 patent, efforts to practice the asserted patents, and patent valuation; and (2) supplemental responses to requests for admission on the patents’ priority dates.
Plaintiffs argued lack of control over third-party affiliate documents and that they could not admit priority dates without further third-party/expert discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs must produce documents held by Cantor affiliates	Plaintiffs: Affiliates are separate entities; plaintiffs lack control over those documents	Defendants: Plaintiffs have legal/control access because documents have been routed/produced through the same Cantor channels	Court: Grant — Plaintiffs demonstrated control; must produce listed categories of documents held by Cantor affiliates
Whether Plaintiffs must supplement requests for admission on patent priority dates	Plaintiffs: Denial justified pending third-party inventor discovery and expert input; need further discovery	Defendants: Plaintiffs failed to make reasonable inquiry before denying; responses insufficient	Court: Grant — Plaintiffs’ denials were deficient and must be supplemented
Scope/proportionality of discovery into valuation, prosecution, and corporate relationships	Plaintiffs: Implicitly argue these are outside their control or unduly burdensome when held by affiliates	Defendants: These categories are relevant and proportional given shared management and prior disclosures	Court: Grant — Relevant and proportional; producible due to control shown
Requests for sanctions based on discovery conduct	Plaintiffs: Sought sanctions against Defendants? (both parties sought sanctions)	Defendants: Sought sanctions against Plaintiffs for withholding/discovery conduct	Court: Denied — Neither party awarded sanctions

United States v. Int'l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir.) (control construed broadly as legal right to obtain documents on demand)
Boyce v. Anderson, 451 F.2d 818 (9th Cir.) (priority of invention requires conception and reduction to practice analysis)
Hann v. Venetian Blind Corp., 111 F.2d 455 (9th Cir.) (filing a patent application is constructive reduction to practice)