MyECHeck, Inc. v. Zipmark, Inc. et al

Filing 43

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/15/2015 ORDERING the scheduling order modified regarding proceedings relating to section 101 patent eligibility. Further hearing regarding the patent ineligibility of U.S. Patent No. 7,389,913 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is scheduled for 3/8/2016 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

BRIAN R. KATZ, State Bar No. 88895
4364 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 207
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

PAUL D. TRIPODI II, State Bar No. 162380
GRACE J. PAK, State Bar No. 277705
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorney for Plaintiff
MYECHECK, INC.

CRAIG BOLTON (PRO HAC VICE
ADMITTED)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
ZIPMARK, INC.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION

17
18

MYECHECK, Inc., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22

v.
ZIPMARK, INC. and Does 1 -- 20, Inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-02399-JAM-KJN
JOINT STIPULATED MODIFIED
SCHEDULING ORDER
REGARDING PROCEEDINGS
RELATING TO SECTION 101
PATENT ELIGIBILITY

25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JOINT STIPULATED
MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02399-JAM-KJN

1
2

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order dated October 7, 2015 (Dkt. 38), the parties hereby
submit this proposed modified scheduling order.

3
4

Event

Deadline

Fact Discovery directed to Section 101 issues,
including:
 Written discovery responses to be
provided in 14 days of electronic or
personal service
 Responsive Documents to be produced
within 10 days after responses
 Fact Depositions, if any, to be noticed
10 days in advance of proposed
deposition date, directed to Section 101
issues

November 25, 2015

Zipmark Initial Expert Statement(s) and
Tutorial Summary

December 11, 2015
December 24, 2015

13

MyECheck Responsive Expert Statement(s) and
Tutorial Summary

14

Expert Depositions completed

January 15, 2016

15

Zipmark’s Supplemental Brief Regarding Patent
Ineligibility of U.S. Patent No. 7,329,913 Under
35 U.S.C. § 101 (Maximum 25 pages)

January 29, 2016

MyECheck’s Opposition to Zipmark’s
Supplemental Brief (Maximum 25 pages)

February 12 2016

Zipmark’s Reply in Support of Supplemental
Brief (Maximum 10 pages)

February 19, 2016

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

16
17
18
19
20
21

The parties propose that a further hearing regarding the patent ineligibility of U.S. Patent
No. 7,389,913 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be held on March 8, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

22
23

Scope
Pursuant to the Court’s statements at the Oct. 7, 2015 hearing, the parties understand that

24

the scope of discovery will be limited to the issue of whether or not the patent-in-suit, U.S.

25

Patent No. 7,389,913, is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The parties further

26

understand that all other issues in this litigation will be stayed pending resolution of the issue of

27

patent eligibility.

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

-1-

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02399-JAM-KJN

1

Content of Expert Statements

2

The parties propose that the Expert Statements contain, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

26(a)(2)(C)(i), the subject matter on which the party’s expert is expected to present evidence at

4

the Court’s hearing regarding these matters. The parties further propose that the Expert

5

Statements also contain, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii), a summary of the facts and opinions to

6

which the expert is expected to testify at the Court’s hearing regarding these matters, including a

7

detailed summary of any tutorial that will be offered.
Supplemental Briefing Page Limit

8
9

The parties propose that the page limit of the supplemental briefs be the same as this

10

Court’s page limits on motions for summary judgment. Specifically, the parties propose the

11

following page limits:

12

Zipmark’s Supplemental Brief: 25 pages

13

MyECheck’s Opposition to Zipmark’s Supplemental Brief: 25 pages

14

Zipmark’s Reply in Support of Supplemental Brief: 10 pages

15
16
17
18
19
20

Dated: October 13, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Brian R. Katz
Brian R. Katz, State Bar No. 88895
[e-mail]

s/ Paul D. Tripodi, II
Paul D. Tripodi II, State Bar No. 162380
[e-mail]

Attorney for Plaintiff
MYECHECK, INC.

Attorneys for Defendant
ZIPMARK, INC.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: 10/15/2015______________

27

/s/ John A. Mendez
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge

28
[PROPOSED] JOINT STIPULATED
MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER

-2-

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02399-JAM-KJN