Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 135

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 135

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 135

Filed 02/05/2007

Page 1 of 6

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL (No. 170085) ([e-mail]) RICARDO RODRIGUEZ (No. 173003) ([e-mail]) MICHELLE S. RHYU (No. 212922) ([e-mail]) Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY and Counterclaim Defendants THOMAS MERIGAN and MARK HOLODNIY QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Adrian M. Pruetz (Bar No. 118215) ([e-mail]) Jeffrey N. Boozell (Bar No. 199507) ([e-mail]) 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Robert W. Stone (Bar No. 163513) ([e-mail]) Brian C. Cannon (Bar No. 193071) ([e-mail]) Tun-Jen Chiang (Bar No. 235165) ([e-mail]) 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Corporation; and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, ET AL., Defendants.

Case No. C 05 04158 MHP JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: February 12, 2007 Time: 3:00 PM Place: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 135

Filed 02/05/2007

Page 2 of 6

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, ET AL., Counterclaimants, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; THOMAS MERIGAN; AND MARK HOLODNIY, Counterclaim Defendants.

2.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 135

Filed 02/05/2007

Page 3 of 6

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford"), Counterdefendants Thomas Merigan, M.D. ("Dr. Merigan"), and Mark Holodniy, M.D. ("Dr. Holodniy"), and Defendants and Counterclaimants Roche Molecular Systems, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. (collectively "Roche") jointly submit this Supplemental Case Management Statement. OVERVIEW AND STATUS For the basic background, the parties incorporate by reference the prior CMC statements. As the Court is aware, the case was bifurcated to first address ownership issues. This first phase of the case culminated in summary judgment motions, which the Court heard on December 7 and which remain pending. At that hearing, the Court set this CMC. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION As the Court is aware, prior to the filing of the case, the parties participated in a private, non-court-sponsored, JAMS mediation with Magistrate Judge Edward Infante on April 6, 2005. The parties also met in person to discuss settlement on Thursday, February 1, 2007. Further settlement discussions will be held on February 20, 2007. DISCOVERY AND CASE SCHEDULE The parties await the Court's ruling on the parties' pending motions for summary judgment. The parties disagree over whether it is possible to propose a case schedule absent the ruling. Each party's proposal is set forth separately, below. Stanford's Proposed Case Schedule Stanford believes that the case should proceed to the infringement and validity phase immediately upon resolution of the parties' pending motions for summary judgment. Stanford proposes the case schedule below, which would be adjusted if necessary based on the date of the Court's order on the parties summary judgment motions. Stanford will supplement this case schedule after the Court's ruling on the parties' pending motions for summary judgment. Event Due Date if MSJs Decided on or before 2/12/07*
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

3.

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 135

Filed 02/05/2007

Page 4 of 6

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

Event Supplemental CMC Last day for patentee to serve Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions and produce initial patent disclosures Last day to amend pleadings without leave of court Last day for accused infringer to serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions and produce initial patent disclosures Exchange Proposed Disputed Terms Last day for simultaneous exchange Preliminary Claim Construction and identify extrinsic evidence Last day to file Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Claim Construction Prehearing Conference Completion of claim construction discovery Opening claim construction brief Responsive claim construction brief Reply claim construction brief Claim construction hearing Last day to amend Preliminary Infringement Contention pursuant to Pat LR 3-6 (a) Last day to amend Preliminary Invalidity Contentions pursuant to Pat LR 3-6(b) Last day for accused infringer to produce opinions of counsel and related privilege log re willfulness Proposed End of Fact Discovery Opening Expert Reports due for Party with burden of proof Rebuttal Expert Reports due Proposed End of Expert Discovery Last Day for filing dispositive motions Last Day for Opposition Briefs Last Day for Reply Briefs

Due Date if MSJs Decided on or before 2/12/07* 2/12/07 (per Court Order) 02/27/07 03/01/07 04/13/07 04/27/07 05/17/07 06/11/07 As per the Court's schedule 07/11/07 07/26/07 8/23/07 08/30/07 09/14/07 30 days after Claim Construction Order 50 days after Claim Construction Order 50 days after Claim Construction Order 9/28//07 10/26/07 11/16/07 12/14/07 1/25/08 2/15/08 2/29/08

4.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 135

Filed 02/05/2007

Page 5 of 6

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

Event Hearing on dispositive motions Pretrial conference Trial

Due Date if MSJs Decided on or before 2/12/07* 3/12/08 04/28/08 04/29/08

* If the MSJ order issues after 2/12/07, the deadline will be adjusted by the number of days between the MSJ order and 2/12/07.

Roche's Proposal Given that the Court has not yet ruled on the parties' pending motions for summary judgment, Roche believes that it is inappropriate to propose a discovery and case schedule at this time. Moreover, consistent with the bifurcation order, Roche further believes that all ownership issues should be resolved before the Court considers a discovery and briefing schedule for the patent infringement, invalidity and unenforceability issues. Roche believes that once the Court issues its ruling on the pending summary judgment motions, the parties should meet and confer to resolve what ownership issues, if any, remain in the case and to propose: 1) a schedule to complete any discovery relating to those issues consistent with the local rules; and 2) a schedule for summary judgment briefing and trial.

Anticipated length of trial: Should any issues of ownership remain following the Court's rulings on the pending summary judgment motions, Roche requests a trial on those issues. Roche reserves its right to provide the Court with its ownership phase trial estimate once the Court issues its summary judgment rulings. Stanford, Merigan, and Holodniy oppose bifurcation to create a separate trial phase on ownership. Stanford, Merigan, and Holodniy request 7 trial days for their entire case (affirmative and rebuttal), including issues of infringement and validity, where each trial day is from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 5.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 135

Filed 02/05/2007

Page 6 of 6

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

Dated: February 5, 2007

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL RICARDO RODRIGUEZ MICHELLE S. RHYU

/S/ Ricardo Rodriguez Attorneys for Counter Defendants The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Thomas Merigan and Mark Holodniy Dated: February 5, 2007 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP ADRIAN M. PRUETZ JEFFREY N. BOOZELL ROBERT W. STONE BRIAN C. CANNON TUN-JEN CHIANG

/S/ Robert W. Stone Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiff Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Corporation; and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc.

Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, Ricardo Rodriguez hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained..

6.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP