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

Filing 143

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

Doc. 143

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 143

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 1 of 7

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 PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP Adrian M. Pruetz (Bar No. 118215) ([e-mail]) 1600 Rosecrans Avenue, 4th Floor Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 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. Case No. C 05 04158 MHP JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: March 19, 2007 Time: 3:00 PM Place: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 143

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 2 of 7

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., Defendants. Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

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 143

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 3 of 7

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. This Court bifurcated the case upon Roche's request to first address ownership issues. This first phase of the case culminated in summary judgment motions, which the Court has decided. Based on the Court's Order, plaintiffs have requested that Roche dismiss its counterclaims against Drs. Merigan and Holodniy, and dismiss its claims relating to the Kozal patents. If Roche will not to dismiss these claims voluntarily, Plaintiffs intend to bring a summary judgment motion to effect the dismissal. In light of the Court's order, Roche will be filing, concurrently with this CMC statement, a request pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and Fed. R. App. P. 5(a) seeking an order from this Court amending its February 23, 2007 Memorandum & Order: Cross Motions for Summary Judgment ("SJ Order") to certify the SJ Order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and to stay proceedings pending appeal because the SJ Order (1) "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion" and (2) "immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Should the Court deny Roche's request, Roche is prepared to proceed with the second phase of this matter as set forth below. 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. DISCOVERY The parties agree to 25 interrogatories, 100 requests for admission, and 70 hours of 3.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 143

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 4 of 7

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

deposition per side (not per party) excluding time expended in deposing expert witnesses. Stanford has proposed that no previously deposed witnesses, without exclusion, can be deposed for more than one additional half day of 3.5 hours. Roche is amenable to such a proposal provided that any previously deposed named inventors are excepted from such agreement. CASE SCHEDULE Stanford's Proposed Case Schedule Stanford believes that the case should proceed on its patent infringement claims and all other remaining issues as well. Stanford proposes the case schedule below. With regard to the deadline for amending pleadings, Stanford is unaware of what new claims or defenses Roche intends to assert and thus reserves the right to request a different schedule or course of action depending on the nature of any amended pleading filed by Roche. Event 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) 4. 3/19/07 04/02/07 04/06/07 05/17/07 06/01/07 06/15/07 06/29/07 As per the Court's schedule 07/20/07 08/3/07 08/22/07 08/31/07 9/17/07 30 days after Claim Construction Order
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

Due Date

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 143

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 5 of 7

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 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 Hearing on dispositive motions Pretrial conference Trial Roche's Proposed Case Schedule

Due Date 50 days after Claim Construction Order 50 days after Claim Construction Order 10/24/07 11/30/07 12/21/07 1/31/07 02/29/08 03/21/08 04/2/08 04/21/08 05/12/08 05/13/08

Roche proposes initiating the patent local rule schedule immediately following the close of pleadings. Roche proposes tracking the patent local rules for all dates and closing fact discovery approximately eleven weeks after the claim construction hearing. Event CMC Last day to amend pleadings without leave of court Last day for patentee to serve Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions and produce initial patent disclosures 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 5. 3/19/07 04/06/07 4/20/2007 Due Date

06/04/2007 06/18/2007 07/09/2007
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 143

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 6 of 7

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 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 Commence Damages Discovery 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 Hearing on dispositive motions Pretrial conference Trial Anticipated length of trial:

Due Date 08/03/2007 As per the Court's schedule 09/04/2007 09/17/2007 10/1/2007 10/11/2007 10/25/2007 10/26/2007 30 days after Claim Construction Order 50 days after Claim Construction Order 50 days after Claim Construction Order 1/11/08 2/8/08 2/29/08 3/28/08 4/18/08 5/2/08 5/16/08 6/13/08 10/27/08 10/28/08

Stanford, Merigan, and Holodniy oppose any further bifurcation. Stanford, Merigan, and Holodniy request 7 trial days for their entire case (affirmative and rebuttal), including issues of

6.

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

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 143

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 7 of 7

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

infringement and validity, where each trial day is from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Roche requests 7 trial days for the presentation of its case. Dated: March 12, 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: March 12, 2007 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP JEFFREY N. BOOZELL ROBERT W. STONE BRIAN C. CANNON TUN-JEN CHIANG PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP ADRIAN M. PRUETZ

/s/ Brian C. Cannon Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiff Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Corporation; and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc.

/s/ 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.

7.

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