Lam Research Corporation v. Schunk Semiconductor et al

Filing 213

ORDER re 212 Stipulation filed by Schunk Semiconductor, Xycarb Ceramics, Inc. Motions due by 2/27/2012. Tutorial Hearing set for 7/12/2011 02:30 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Claims Construction Hearing set for 7/14/2011 02:30 PM. Jury Selection/Jury Trial set for 4/16/2012 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 2/11/2011. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2011)

Download PDF
Lam Research Corporation v. Schunk Semiconductor et al Doc. 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Patrick T. Michael (SBN: 169745) Marcus T. Hall (SBN: 206495) Mari Overbeck (SBN: 261707) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Email: pmichael@winston.com Email: mthall@winston.com Email: moverbeck@winston.com Attorneys for Plaintiff LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION David R. Shaub, Esq. (SBN: 032322) Lisbeth Bosshart Merrill, Esq. (SBN: 201822) Robert C. Matz, Esq. (SBN: 217822) Cassandra M. Lamb, Esq. (SBN: 270227) SHAUB & WILLIAMS LLP 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-826-6678, 310-826-8042 (facsimile) lawfirm@sw-law.com David Rosenbaum (admitted pro hac vice) ROSENBAUM & SILVERT, P.C. 1480 Techny Road Northbrook, IL 60062 (847) 770-6000; (847) 770-6006 (facsimile) drosenbaum@biopatentlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant XYCARB CERAMICS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, Case No.: C03 -1335 CRB JOINT [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7-12) 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER SCHUNK SEMICONDUCTOR and XYCARB CERAMICS, INC. Defendants. Before: The Honorable Charles R. Breyer WHEREAS, on November 16, 2009, a request for ex parte reexamination of claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 5,074,456 (the "`456 Patent") was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). On April 24, 2010, the USPTO issued United States Reissue Patent No. RE 41,266 (the "`266 Reissue Patent"), which is the patent at issue in this action. On June 16, 2010, Lam Research filed an Administrative Motion to Reopen the above-captioned case, which was previously stayed by this Court on July 9, 2004. This Court granted that motion on July 6, 2010. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 On June 23, 2010, the USPTO granted the November 16, 2009 request for re-examination, and based the re-examination on issued claims 1-36 of the `266 Reissue Patent. On June 23, 2010, the USPTO also issued an initial office action rejecting each claim of the `266 Reissue Patent. Lam Research Corporation responded to the office action on July 30, 2010. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final office action rejecting all the issued claims of the `266 reissue patent on February 10, 2011. On March 3, 2011, counsel for Plaintiff contacted counsel for Defendant, informed them of the events occurring in the re-examination of the `266 Reissue Patent, and requested that Defendant stipulate to a stay of the current action due to that re-examination activity. On March 7, 2011, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel Defendant met and conferred regarding Plaintiffs' request to stipulate to a stay of the present action. Defendant declined to stipulate to a stay, and requested that Plaintiff dismiss its action. Plaintiff declined to dismiss its action and informed Defendant that it would seek a motion to stay the present action. On March 8, 2011, Xycarb and Lam Research agreed to a joint stipulation extending the dates set forth in this Court's November 23, 2010 Scheduling Order so that proceedings relating to Plaintiff's prospective motion for a stay and Defendant's response could be pursued before this Court. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that the dates set forth as Attachment "A" to the Joint Stipulated Scheduling Order entered on November 24, 2010, are modified as set forth in Attachment A hereto, and that the Court adopt those dates as the Modified Scheduling Order in this action. Respectfully submitted, JOINT [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 2 1 Dated: March 8, 2011 2 3 By: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dates set forth in Attachment A be adopted as the Modified Scheduling Order in this case. By: /s/ David R. Shaub David R. Shaub Lisbeth Bosshart Merrill Cassandra M. Lamb Attorneys for Defendant XYCARB CERAMICS, INC. SHAUB & WILLIAMS LLP /s/ Marcus T. Hall Marcus T. Hall Patrick T. Michael Mari Overbeck Attorneys for Defendant LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION WINSTON & STRAWN LLP March 11, 2011 Dated: ____________________ S CT _______________________________ TE C UNIT ED 28 F D IS T IC T O R JOINT [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 3 N A 27 ER C LI FO 26 harle Judge C s R. Bre yer R NIA The Honorable Charles Breyer United States District Judge ED DER NorthernT IS SOof California District OR I S TA DISTRI RT U O NO RT H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Patrick T. Michael (SBN: 169745) Marcus T. Hall (SBN: 206495) Mari Overbeck (SBN: 261707) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Email: pmichael@winston.com Email: mthall@winston.com Email: moverbeck@winston.com Attorneys for Plaintiff LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION David R. Shaub, Esq. (SBN: 032322) Lisbeth Bosshart Merrill, Esq. (SBN: 201822) Robert C. Matz, Esq. (SBN: 217822) Cassandra M. Lamb, Esq. (SBN: 270227) SHAUB & WILLIAMS LLP 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-826-6678, 310-826-8042 (facsimile) lawfirm@sw-law.com David Rosenbaum (admitted pro hac vice) ROSENBAUM & SILVERT, P.C. 1480 Techny Road Northbrook, IL 60062 (847) 770-6000; (847) 770-6006 (facsimile) drosenbaum@biopatentlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant XYCARB CERAMICS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, Case No.: C03 -1335 CRB ATTACHMENT A TO JOINT [PROPOSED] STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// /// ATTACHMENT A TO JOINT [PROPOSED] STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER SCHUNK SEMICONDUCTOR and XYCARB CERAMICS, INC. Defendants. Before: The Honorable Charles R. Breyer 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 (Est. Aug. 8, 2011) Two Weeks After Claim Construction (Est. Aug. 22, 2011) Three Months After Claim Construction Ruling (Est. Oct. 14, 2011) Four Months After Claim Construction Ruling (Est. Oct. 31, 2011) Jul. 1, 2011 Jul. 12, 2011 Jul. 14, 2011 DATE Jun. 10, 2011 Jun. 20, 2011 ATTACHMENT A EVENT File and serve Opening Claim Construction briefs Patent L.R. 4-5(a) File and serve Responsive Claim Construction briefs Patent L.R. 4-5(b) File and serve Reply Claim Construction briefs Patent L.R. 4-5(c) Claim Construction Tutorial Claim Construction Hearing Patent L.R. 4-6 Court Issues Claim Construction Ruling Advice of Counsel Patent L.R. 3-7 Serve final Privilege Logs Close of Fact Discovery Two Weeks After Close of Fact Discovery (Est. Nov. 21, 2011) Two Weeks After Designation of Experts (Est. Dec. 5, 2011) Three Weeks After Initial Expert Reports (Est. Dec. 26, 2011) One Month After Rebuttal Expert Reports (Est. Jan. 30, 2012) Four Weeks After Completion of Expert Discovery (Est Feb. 27, 2012) April 16, 2012 Last Day to Designate Experts Initial expert reports on issues where the party bears the burden of proof Rebuttal Expert Reports Completion of expert discovery Last day to file dispositive motions TRIAL ATTACHMENT A TO JOINT [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 1

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?