Lenny R. Jiang, et al. v. NVIDIA Corp., et al.

Jiang v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 26-mc-18-ABJ-MJS (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · April 9, 2026 · No. 26-mc-18-ABJ-MJS

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered a motion by patent prosecution counsel and his law firm to quash Rule 45 document and deposition subpoenas issued in connection with patent litigation pending in the Western District of Texas. The court quashed the deposition subpoenas because the proposed discovery was insufficiently relevant and implicated substantial privilege concerns, but required petitioners to prepare a privilege log and produce responsive nonprivileged documents. The opinion addresses attorney-client privilege, attorney depositions, undue burden, and discovery concerning patent defenses and licensing.

Holdings

  1. Petitioners were required to prepare an appropriate privilege log for responsive documents withheld under a claim of privilege or work-product protection and to produce responsive nonprivileged documents.
  2. The deposition subpoenas served on Jiang and Paratus Law were quashed under Rule 45 because the proposed discovery carried a serious risk of privileged disclosure and NVIDIA failed to establish a sufficiently relevant, nonprivileged, and necessary basis for the testimony.
  3. NVIDIA could not use the subpoenas to pursue discovery for an inequitable-conduct defense that had not been pleaded and might only be asserted in the future.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Rule 45 deposition subpoenas served on former patent-prosecution counsel should be quashed because the requested testimony posed a substantial risk of privileged disclosure, was irrelevant or speculative, or could be obtained from other sources.
  2. Whether Petitioners should be excused from preparing a privilege log for documents withheld under attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.
  3. Whether NVIDIA could pursue deposition discovery from former patent-prosecution counsel concerning an unpleaded inequitable-conduct defense, prosecution history estoppel, Section 112 defenses, licensing, or inventorship.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (31)

  • SiliconArts Technology US Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 1:25-cv-431-ADA (W.D. Tex.)(underlying proceeding)
  • Pishevar v. Fusion GPS, 2025 WL 885115, at *3, *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2025)(followed)
  • Breiterman v. U.S. Capitol Police, 323 F.R.D. 36, 42 (D.D.C. 2017)(followed)
  • Watts v. S.E.C., 482 F.3d 501, 508-09 (D.C. Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Irons v. Karceski, 74 F.3d 1262, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Petruss Media Grp., LLC v. Advantage Sales & Mktg. LLC, 347 F.R.D. 39, 42 (D.D.C. 2024)(followed)
  • In re Non-Party Subpoena to Ctr. for Study of Soc. Pol’y, 659 F. Supp. 3d 54, 58 (D.D.C. 2023)(followed)
  • Dell Inc. v. DeCosta, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3-4 (D.D.C. 2017)(distinguished)
  • AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990, 995 (D.C. Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 2013 WL 12303364, at *3, *5 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2013)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 31.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…