Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 7/31/2026
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 270

On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff Cellspin Soft, Inc. and Defendants Garmin International, Inc.
(“Garmin”) filed a joint discovery letter, in which Garmin sought an addendum to the Protective
Order. This proposed addendum would allow Defendant to use materials obtained in the instant
litigation (“N.D. Cal. Action”) in new actions brought by Plaintiff against entities related to
Garmin in the Eastern District of Texas (“E.D. Texas Actions”). (Dkt. No. 268.) On June 17,
2026, the Court found that despite the Ninth Circuit’s position of “strongly favor[ing] access to
discovery materials to meet the needs of parties engaged in collateral litigation,” Defendant’s
assertion that “[m]uch of the same material Defendants relied on in this case will be relevant in
[the E.D. Texas Actions]” was insufficient to carry its “burden of establishing relevance.”
(6/17/26 Order at 1-2, Dkt. No. 269.)
On July 31, 2026, the parties filed the instant discovery letter, in which Defendant again
seeks an addendum allowing the use of protected materials in the E.D. Tex. Actions. (Discovery
Letter, Dkt. No. 270.) While “a collateral litigant’s request to the issuing court to modify an
otherwise proper protective order so that collateral litigants are not precluded from obtaining
relevant material should generally be granted . . . the collateral litigant must demonstrate the
relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral proceedings and its general discoverability
Case 4:17-cv-05934-YGR Document 271 Filed 08/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court

Northern District of California

therein.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court
again finds that Garmin has not met its burden of establishing relevance here.
In the June 17, 2026 order, the Court found that, “[a]t a minimum, Defendants should be
able to specifically describe the overlap between the cases and identify the categories of
documents that they believe would be relevant to the collateral suit, as well as explain why such
categories would be relevant.” (6/17/26 Order at 2-3.) This was particularly the case where
Plaintiff had provided examples of differences between the cases, including different wearables
with updated sensors/applications, including distinct aviation/avionics and different applications,
versions, sensors, firmware, architecture, and technical implementations. (Id. at 2.) Further, the
Court noted that to the extent Defendant relied on infringement charts, it was “not clear how
reliance on infringement charts demonstrates overlap, such as how the 2022 infringement chart
would have covered or anticipated products that may not have existed until years later[.]” (Id.)
While Defendant has now identified categories of documents, Defendant’s explanation of
overlap is still overbroad and conclusory. Again, Defendant argues that the cases “involve the
same patents, parties, and accused system.” (Discovery Letter at 2.) This argument is, in essence,
the same functionality argument that this Court has already found insufficient. Further, to support
this argument, Defendant appears to still rely on the old infringement charts from the instant case
to argue that all versions of Bluetooth Low Energy operate in the same manner for purposes of
infringement. (Id.) It remains unclear, however, how that infringement chart would apply to the
products in the E.D. Texas Actions, particularly if those products post-date the infringement chart.
Likewise, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s expert opined that “the vast majority of the differences
among the Accused Instrumentalities . . . have no relevance to the infringement analysis,” but this
again appears to be based on a 2021 expert report in the instant case. Thus, it is not apparent that
this opinion applies to the products in the E.D. Texas Actions. In short, Defendant appears to rely
on the similarity between products in the instant case to argue that infringement occurs in the
same way as to products in the E.D. Texas Actions, but this is not persuasive.
The inadequacy of Defendant’s comparison is further highlighted by its failure to respond
to Plaintiff’s argument that the E.D. Texas Actions involve “post-2022 wearables ... [that] involve
Case 4:17-cv-05934-YGR Document 271 Filed 08/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court

Northern District of California

different applications, versions, sensors, firmware, BLE/GATT implementations, backend
architectures, and technical implementations.” (Discovery Letter at 3-4.) Nor does Defendant
respond to Plaintiff’s argument that the parties are distinct in the two actions, as the instant case
concerns “Garmin International and Garmin USA, Kansas-based U.S. entities, while the Texas
action is against Garmin Corporation, a Taiwan entity, and Garmin Ltd., the Swiss parent.” (Id. at
3.) Thus, Defendant has not adequately supported its assertion that the cases involve the same
parties or accused system.
Accordingly, the Court again DENIES Defendant Garmin’s request for an addendum to the
Protective Order. The denial is without prejudice.
This order disposes of Dkt. No. 270.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 14, 2026
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:17-cv-05934-YGR Document 271 Filed 08/14/26 Page 3 of 3