Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. Rayvio Corporation, 5:17-cv-02952

Nitride Semiconductors sued RayVio alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,861,270; fact discovery was ongoing and scheduled to close June 28, 2018.
Plaintiff served interrogatories requesting detailed technical descriptions of accused epitaxial processes/structures (Interrogs. 2, 3, 11) and full factual/legal bases for noninfringement and product-difference defenses (Interrogs. 7, 8, 10).
RayVio provided partial answers but objected that several interrogatories were premature contention interrogatories and that key terms require claim construction.
Claim-construction briefing was underway and certain key terms (e.g., “light-emitting layer,” “spatial fluctuation in the band gap”) were disputed and awaiting resolution by the District Judge.
Parties filed a joint statement; Plaintiff moved to compel more complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RayVio must now provide fuller responses to contention interrogatories (Nos. 7, 8, 10)	Responses would supply basic facts about accused products and aid discovery now	Interrogatories seek premature contentions/expert opinions before substantial discovery and claim construction	Denied without prejudice — responses may be sought later in discovery
Whether RayVio must now provide detailed technical descriptions of accused epitaxial processes/structures (Nos. 2, 3, 11)	Plaintiff needs these factual details now to clarify infringement issues	Technical terms are subject to claim construction and document production/depositions are incomplete, making early answers of limited value	Denied without prejudice — wait until claim construction/substantial discovery progress

In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (movant must show early contention interrogatory responses would meaningfully clarify issues, narrow dispute, enable early settlement, or expose basis for Rule 11/56 motion)