Haptic, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
3:24-cv-02296
| N.D. Cal. | Jun 3, 2025Background
- Haptic, Inc. sued Apple Inc. for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738.
- Haptic retained Susman Godfrey as counsel and obtained litigation funding from Siltstone Capital Litigation Fund, which does not have ownership or control over the patent or litigation.
- Apple moved to compel the production of all litigation funding communications and related agreements between Haptic and funders.
- Haptic prepared a privilege log for documents shared with funders pre-suit, asserting work product protection and common-interest privilege.
- Apple also subpoenaed Haptic’s funder and sought related discovery; Haptic and the funder moved to quash these subpoenas.
- The court consolidated related motions and, after oral argument, issued this decision denying Apple’s motions and granting Haptic’s motions to quash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of documents | Documents not relevant; some not valuation/validity | Needed for damages, validity, themes, credibility | Only damages/validity analysis relevant |
| Work product protection | Documents are protected work product | Not work product; business purpose | Work product applies |
| Waiver by disclosure | No waiver due to NDAs and common interest | Disclosure to third parties waived protection | No waiver; shared only under NDA |
| Common interest doctrine | Applies to funders and Haptic | No joint legal strategy/common interest | Does not apply to funding arrangements |
| Standing concerns | Funder has no patent interest | Funding agreement might affect standing | No standing relevance; testimony sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addressed reasonable royalty and damages analysis in patent cases)
- Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 499 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (standing derived from exclusionary patent rights)
- United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2011) (work product doctrine protects litigation-prepared documents)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 357 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2004) (work product privilege under "because of" test)
- United States v. Sanmina Corp., 968 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2020) (standards on work product waiver and fairness)
- United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975) (work product privilege not absolute; can be waived)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (Georgia-Pacific factors for patent damages)
- Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (role of expert testimony in royalty-factor analysis)
- WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standing corresponds to exclusionary rights)