Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
MeshDynamics moved to compel Cisco to produce discovery concerning Webex Meetings Survivability, or WMS, in this patent-infringement action. MeshDynamics had charted two similarly named Webex Calling features—Site Survivability and Enhanced Survivability—in its infringement contentions and had briefly identified WMS. It argued that the features appeared similar and representative of one another, while publicly available information about WMS was limited.
Cisco opposed the motion, asserting that its internal investigation showed WMS was neither representative of nor related to the charted survivability products. Cisco had produced some internal technical documentation but maintained that WMS had no associated source code and that MeshDynamics had not identified a technical basis for treating the similarly named features as representative.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted MeshDynamics’ motion to compel. It held that Cisco’s internal assessment did not justify withholding discovery because MeshDynamics was entitled to evaluate the confidential information itself and determine whether WMS was relevant and technically similar to the survivability features identified in its infringement contentions.
The court also found Cisco’s claim that WMS had no associated source code strained credibility because Cisco’s documents indicated that WMS operates through Cisco Meeting servers deployed on customers’ premises. At this stage, the court was not persuaded that WMS was irrelevant merely because it might involve manually selected failover rather than the automatic or “Self-Forming” failover allegedly contemplated by the asserted patent. The court ordered Cisco, within 14 days, to produce all technical documents and source code describing WMS’s operation, including Cisco Meeting server configuration steps users can enter during an outage, and then file a notice of compliance.
Key Takeaways
- A producing party cannot defeat relevant discovery solely by relying on its own internal conclusion that the requested material is unrelated to the opposing party’s theory.
- The court found that code running on Cisco Meeting servers could qualify as source code associated with WMS despite Cisco’s contrary characterization.
- Potential distinctions between manual and automatic failover did not establish irrelevance at the discovery stage where all identified survivability features appeared to prevent meeting or call failures.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that, in patent cases, courts may permit discovery into technically related product features even when the accused infringer disputes their representativeness or ultimate relevance. A party generally must produce responsive technical material rather than ask its opponent or the court to accept its unilateral internal assessment.
It also illustrates that courts may look beyond labels when evaluating source-code discovery. If a feature is implemented through deployed server software, a bare assertion that the feature has “no associated source code” may not withstand scrutiny.