Cpc Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 119 F.4th 1126

CPC Patent Technologies (CPC), an Australian patent holding company, sought discovery from Apple Inc. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in a prospective German patent infringement case.
The district court initially denied CPC’s application based on the Intel factors, finding the requests unduly burdensome, but was reversed by the Ninth Circuit for using the wrong review standard (clear error instead of de novo).
On remand, the district court granted § 1782 discovery to CPC after de novo review and entry of a protective order, but did not resolve all objections regarding the specific scope of required discovery.
Apple objected, especially regarding the production of source code, and filed an appeal; the district court stayed further discovery pending this appeal.
The primary question became whether the district court’s order was a final, appealable decision, given that the scope of discovery remained unresolved.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether district court’s § 1782 order is final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291	The order is final because all Intel factors were addressed and permission was given to serve the subpoena.	The order is not final because discovery scope and objections remain unresolved.	Not final; appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review at this stage.
Whether appellate court should review application of Intel factors	District court properly weighed Intel factors and granted discovery.	Intel factors not properly applied, especially concerning burden and confidentiality (source code).	Unable to reach merits or Intel factor application due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Whether Apple must produce source code as part of discovery	Only if no other information is available; court can tailor discovery.	Disclosure of source code is highly proprietary and potentially not protected in foreign forum.	No present court order requiring specific source code production.
Effect of unresolved objections/further motions on finality	All necessary determinations made, any disputes are like post-judgment motions.	Outstanding objections to what must be produced prevent finality.	Discovery scope must be conclusively determined for finality and appealability.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court – sets factors for § 1782 discovery)
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (articulates the standard for what constitutes a final, appealable judgment)
Snodgrass v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163 (explains finality as disassociation of the district court from the matter)
Banca Pueyo SA v. Lone Star Fund IX (US), L.P., 978 F.3d 968 (5th Cir. – order not final if discovery scope remains unresolved)
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (discusses the pragmatic approach to finality under § 1291)