Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Filing 58

STIPULATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Tutorial set for 2/1/2007 at 9:00 AM; Claims Construction Hearing set for 2/8/2207 09:00 AM; Jury Trial set for 2/26/2008 08:30 AM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Pretrial Conference set for 2/13/2008 02:30 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1)(awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2006)

Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Doc. 58

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 58

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 1 of 7

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

MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) [e-mail] NICHOLAS A. BROWN (Bar No. 198210) [e-mail] LEERON G. KALAY (Bar No. 233579) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant APPLE COMPUTER, INC. PARKER C. FOLSE, III (WA Bar No. 24895-Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] (additional attorneys listed on signature page)

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 v. 22 BURST.COM, INC., 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
SV1:\255654\01\5H9$01!.DOC\15096.0006

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant BURST.COM, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AS AMENDED BY COURT Complaint filed: January 4, 2006 Trial Date: Not Yet Set Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

Defendant and Counterclaimant.

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 58

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4

On May 8, 2006, the Court conducted an Initial Case Management Conference. The parties were represented by counsel and were given an opportunity to be heard as to all matters encompassed by the Joint Case Management Statement and this Order. Based on

guidance provided by the Court at the Case Management Conference, the parties stipulate to 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 October 10, 2006, at 3:00 p.m. October 20, 2006 November 6, 2006 November 22, 2006 December 8, 2006 December 22, 2006 January 31, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. May 22, 2006 May 22, 2006 May 22, 2006 July 6, 2006 July 6, 2006 July 20, 2006 August 18, 2006 August 18, 2006 October 3, 2006 Parties comply with Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures Burst serves PLR 3-1 disclosures Burst produces documents specified in PLR 3-2 Apple serves PLR 3-3 disclosures Apple produces documents specified in PLR 3-4 Parties exchange PLR 4-1(a) information on claim terms Parties exchange preliminary claim constructions under PLR 4-2(a) Parties provide preliminary identification of extrinsic evidence under PLR 4-2(b), except with respect to disclosure of experts Parties file Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement and comply with PLR 4-3, except with respect to disclosure of experts under PLR 4-3(d) Post-Discovery/Pre-Claim Construction Conference Hearing: DATE EVENT adoption of this proposed order as the Case Management Order in this action in accordance with Civ. L.R. 16 and other applicable Local Rules. 1. The following schedule shall govern through the Claim Construction

Parties identify experts and serve expert reports, as required by PLR 43(d) Deadline for completion of discovery relating to claim construction, including depositions of any witnesses (including experts) identified in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (PLR 4-4) Burst files claim construction brief and supporting evidence (PLR 4-5(a)) Apple files responsive claim construction brief and supporting evidence (PLR 4-5(b)) Burst files reply brief and rebuttal evidence on claim construction (PLR 4-5(c)) Tutorial (presentation by counsel)

February 1, 2007 @ 9:00 AM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
SV1:\255654\01\5H9$01!.DOC\15096.0006

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

1

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 58

Filed 09/26/2006

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

February 8, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

Claim Construction Hearing

2.

Pursuant to the Court's instruction at the Case Management Conference to

assume that a claim construction order will issue approximately 30 days after the Claim Construction hearing, the parties have agreed to the following schedule, which will accommodate a claim construction order issued within 60 days of the claim construction hearing. The schedule has blanks for the Hearing on Dispositive Motions, Pretrial Conference, and Trial Date, to be filled in by the Court. The parties further agree that in the event the Court issues a claim construction ruling more than 60 days after the claim construction hearing, or in the event of other currently unanticipated scheduling changes, they will meet and confer regarding the schedule and submit a revised scheduling proposal to the Court. 55 days after claim construction order 60 days after claim construction order (+5days) 80 days after claim construction order (+20days) 98 days after claim construction order (+18days) 112 days after claim construction order (+14 days) Fact discovery to be substantially completed (as discussed at the Case Management Conference) Mediation deadline Disclosure of expert witnesses, service of reports, and production of documents regarding expert testimony on issues as to which each party bears the burden of proof (FRCP 26(a)(2)) Deadline by which all burden-of-proof experts must be produced for deposition

Disclosure of expert witnesses, service of reports, and production of documents regarding expert testimony in response to disclosures regarding burden-of-proof experts (FRCP 26(a)(2)) 117 days after claim Deadline for completing clean-up fact discovery (as discussed construction order (+5days) at the Case Management Conference) 126 days after claim Deadline by which all responsive experts must be produced construction order (+9days) for deposition 126 days after claim Deadline for completing expert discovery construction order 147 days after claim Deadline for filing dispositive motions
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

2

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 58

Filed 09/26/2006

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

construction order (+21days) 177 days after claim construction order (+30days) 191 days after claim construction order (+14days) ___________, 2007 (approximately 2 weeks after reply briefs on dispositive motions) 49 days before trial

Due date for responses to dispositive motions

Due date for reply briefs in support of dispositive motions

Hearing on dispositive motions.

NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 17, 2007 AT 2:00 P.M.
(1) File joint final pretrial conference statement and proposed order; (2) Lodge exhibits and other trial material; (3) Serve and file requests for voir dire questions, jury instructions, and verdict forms; (4) Serve and file statements designating deposition excerpts, interrogatory answers, and responses to requests for admission to be used at trial; (1) Serve objections to admission of exhibits and deposition testimony (2) Serve and file counterdesignations to deposition designations (3) Serve and file motions in limine (1) File objections to counterdesignations and any other objections requiring action by the Court (2) Serve and file oppositions to motions in limine Final pretrial conference FEBRUARY 13, 2008 AT 2:30 P.M. Trial begins FEBRUARY 26, 2008 AT 8:30 A.M.

35 days before trial

21 days before trial

____________, 2008 (approximately 14 days before trial) February ___, 2008

3.

As reflected in the previously filed Joint Case Management Statement, the

parties have agreed as follows regarding written and deposition discovery: a. The parties will adhere to the numerical and temporal limits on deposition discovery in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, except that each side may identify one witness whom it may depose for up to two days of seven hours each (thus giving each party a total of eleven days of depositions). The parties reserve all rights to object to particular depositions, including the right to object that the particular witness
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

3

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 58

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 b. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c.

chosen by the other side for the two-day deposition should not be deposed for two days. The depositions of expert witnesses shall not count against the numerical limitations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). Every seven hours or fraction thereof of deposition testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall count as one day of deposition testimony for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), except that with respect to all depositions taken pursuant to Burst's Notice of Deposition Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) to Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc., dated June 16, 2006, the parties agree that every segment of three and a half (3 ½) hours or less of deposition testimony taken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall count as one half (1/2) day of deposition testimony for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). The parties will adhere to the numerical limitations on interrogatories set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). By his signature below, counsel for Apple Computer, Inc. attests under penalty of perjury that counsel for Burst.com, Inc. concurs in the filing of this Stipulation. Dated: September 11, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Parker C. Folse III PARKER C. FOLSE III (WA Bar No. 24895 Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] IAN B. CROSBY (WA Bar No. 28461 - Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] FLOYD G. SHORT (WA Bar No. 21632- Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

4

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 58

Filed 09/26/2006

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
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777) [e-mail] BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530) [e-mail] HOSIE McARTHUR LLP One Market, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax MICHAEL F. HEIM (TX Bar No. 9380923 Admitted Pro Hac Vice) LESLIE V. PAYNE (TX Bar No. 0784736 Admitted Pro Hac Vice) HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 6710 Houston, TX 77002 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax ROBERT J. YORIO (CA Bar No. 93178) V. RANDALL GARD (CA Bar No. 151677) COLBY B. SPRINGER (CA Bar No. 214868) CARR & FERRELL LLP 2200 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 [phone] Tel. [phone] Attorneys For Defendant BURST.COM, INC. /s/ Nicholas A. Brown MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) [e-mail] NICHOLAS A. BROWN (Bar No. 198210) [e-mail] LEERON G. KALAY (Bar No. 233579) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant APPLE COMPUTER, INC.

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

5

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 58

Filed 09/26/2006

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

Dated: 9/26/2006

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

6

A

C

LI

FO

The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Court Judge el Pat rilyn H. dge Ma Ju

R NIA

DERED SO OR ________________________________________ IT IS
NO

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. TA

RT U O

RT

H