Clearplex Corporation v. Bray Group, et al

Filing 22

AMENDED STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/1/2015 ORDERING each party to serve on each other party by 1/8/2016, its proposed terms for claim construction; ORDERING each party to serve on each other party b y 1/29/2016, its proposed claim construction and supporting evidence; ORDERING the parties to file a Joint Claim Construction Statement by 2/5/2016; ORDERING the parties to simultaneously file opening claim construction briefs and supporting evidence by 2/29/2016; ORDERING the parties to file responsive claim construction briefs by 3/14/2016; SETTING a Claim Construction Hearing for 4/11/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CLEARPLEX CORPORATION, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 No. 2:14-cv-02099-GEB-AC v. BRAY GROUP, a/k/a BRAY, a/k/a THE BRAY GROUP, INC., a/k/a BRAY GROUP INC.; and ALAN BRAY, AMENDED STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER Defendants. 13 14 15 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and request to 16 “extend and modify [the] dates set forth in . . . this Court’s 17 January 22, 2015 Claim Construction Schedule (Dkt. No. 15) by 90 18 days 19 issues. (Stipulation & Proposed Order to Modify Case Schedule 20 3:18-21, ECF No. 21.) for all deadlines,” following amended status order CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 21 The parties’ proposed claim construction schedule is 22 23 the adopted, as modified, as follows: 1. 24 Each party shall serve on each other party its 25 proposed terms for claim construction no later than January 8, 26 2016. 27 28 2. Each party shall serve on each other party its proposed claim construction and supporting evidence no later than 1 1 January 29, 2016. 2 3. The parties shall file a Joint Claim Construction 3 Statement no later than February 5, 2016, after the parties seek 4 to resolve disputes. Disputed terms, phrases, and clauses shall 5 be designated as disputed. For any disputed term, phrase, or 6 clause, the 7 phrase, or 8 construction; and support for each party’s proposed construction 9 side by side. A model format for the construction statement is as 10 follows (or any other substantively similar format that permits 11 the court to compare terms side by side): joint statement clause (listed shall by list claim); each each disputed party’s term, proposed 12 13 14 Claim Language (Disputed term, phrase, or clause in bold) Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in Support Each Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in Support 15 16 17 18 4. The parties shall attach to the Joint Claim 19 Construction Statement a copy of the patent(s) in dispute. The 20 parties shall also make a complete prosecution history for the 21 patent(s) available to the Court upon request. 22 5. The parties shall simultaneously file opening 23 claim construction briefs and supporting evidence no later than 24 February 29, 2016. Claim construction briefs shall address each 25 disputed term, phrase or clause following the order of the joint 26 statement. 27 28 6. The parties shall file responsive construction briefs no later than March 14, 2016. 2 claim 1 2 7. A claim construction hearing is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on April 11, 2016. 3 FURTHER SCHEDULING 4 Upon issuance of the claim construction ruling, the 5 Court will set a date for the filing of a further joint status 6 report. In that report, the parties must address the following 7 topics: 8 9 a) construction ruling for immediate appeal to the Federal Circuit; 10 11 Whether either party wishes to certify the claim b) The filing of dispositive motions, and timing of those motions; 12 c) Anticipated post-claim construction discovery; 13 d) Any other pretrial matters. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: September 1, 2015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?