Plustek, Inc. v. Syscan, Inc.
Filing
30
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULE re 29 Stipulation filed by Plustek, Inc. Signed by Judge James Larson on 2/6/09. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2009)
<![CDATA[
Case 3:07-cv-05718-JL
Document 29
Filed 01/29/2009
Page 1 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SANG N. DANG (NO. 214558) sdang@koslaw.com KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP 43 Corporate Park Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: 949-955-1920 Facsimile: 949-955-1921 Attorneys for Plaintiff PLUSTEK INC.
YUNG MING CHOU (NO. 172118) Chouyung@aol.com 39111 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 207 Fremont, CA 94538 Telephone: 510-713-8698 Facsimile: 510-713-8690 Attorney for Defendant SYSCAN, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
PLUSTEK INC., 19 Plaintiff, 20 vs. 21 SYSCAN, INC. 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
Case No. C 07-05718 JL STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE CASE SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. C 07-05718 JL
Case 3:07-cv-05718-JL
Document 29
Filed 01/29/2009
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
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2007, Plaintiff Plustek Inc. ("Plustek") filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Defendant Syscan, Inc. ("Plustek"), requesting, inter alia, for a declaratory judgment that Plustek does not infringe any claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,705,124 (the "`124 Patent"), and that the `124 Patent is invalid. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Case Management Conference Statement, Syscan's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-1), and Syscan's Document Production Accompanying Disclosure (Patent L.R. 3-2) were due on December 22, 2008. WHEREAS, Syscan has served its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-1) and has provided its Document Production Accompanying Disclosure (Patent L.R. 3-2) on December 22, 2008. WHEREAS, Plustek agrees to allow Syscan to amend its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions as well as produce any additional accompanying documents by February 20, 2009. WHEREAS, Syscan agrees to extend Plustek's deadline to serve its Invalidity Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-3) and provide its Document Production Accompanying Invalidity Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-4) from January 30, 2009 to March 6, 2009. WHEREAS in the interest of judicial economy, and there has been no previous stipulated continuance, the Parties have agreed to extend other due dates in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement by five (5) weeks to adequately adjust for the extension in the due dates of the Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court to order an extension of the case schedule as follows: // // //
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
1
Case No. C 07-05718 JL
Case 3:07-cv-05718-JL
Document 29
Filed 01/29/2009
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
PLEADING OR EVENT Syscan's Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Rule 3-1 of the Patent Local Rules of the United States District Court in the Northern District of California Syscan's Document Production Accompanying Amended Disclosure Plustek's Invalidity Contentions (Patent L.R. 33) Plustek's Document Production Accompanying Invalidity Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-4) Simultaneous exchange of claim terms, phrases or clauses which each party contends should be construed by the Court, and identification of claim elements parties contend should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) (Patent L.R. 41(a)) Meet and confer to finalize the list of disputed claim terms for construction by the Court (Patent L.R. 4-1(b)) February 20, 2009
DATE
February 20, 2009
March 6, 2009
March 6, 2009
March 16, 2009
Week of March 16 - 20, 2009
Simultaneous exchange of preliminary March 20, 2009 proposed construction of each claim term, phrase or clause, which the parties collectively have identified for claim construction purposes. (Patent L.R. 4-2(a)) Exchange of a preliminary identification of extrinsic evidence parties contend supports their respective claim constructions (Patent L.R. 4-2(b)) Meet and confer to narrow the issues and March 20, 2009
Week of March 23 - 27, 2009 2
Case No. C 07-05718 JL
28
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
Case 3:07-cv-05718-JL
Document 29
Filed 01/29/2009
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
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
finalize preparation of a "Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement" (Patent L.R. 4-2(c)) Joint Claim Construction and Preliminary Prehearing Statement (Patent L.R. 4-3) Close of all discovery relating to claim construction, except for discovery from any claim construction experts, if necessary (Patent L.R. 4-4) Syscan's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(a)) Plustek's Responsive Claim Construction Briefs (Patent L.R. 4-5(b)) Syscan's Reply Claim Construction Brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(c)) Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L.R. 4-6) May 1, 2009
May 15, 2009
June 12, 2009
June 26, 2009
July 5, 2009
Subject to the Court's calendar, two weeks following submission of Syscan's Reply Claim Construction brief.
The Parties' Amended Contentions (Patent L.R. Subject to the order of the Court upon a 3-6) timely showing of good cause. The Parties' Advice of Counsel (Patent L.R. 37) Close of fact discovery re merits of claims and defenses 50 days after Claim Construction Decision
100 days after Claim Construction Decision, but not less than 140 days after the conclusion of the Claim Construction Hearing 40 days after the close of fact discovery
Initial Expert Reports on issues on which party bears the burden of proof at trial
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
3
Case No. C 07-05718 JL
Case 3:07-cv-05718-JL
Document 29
Filed 01/29/2009
Page 5 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Final Pretrial Conference 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
Rebuttal Expert Reports Close of Expert Discovery
30 days after service of Initial Expert Reports 56 days after service of Rebuttal Expert Reports 23 days after the date for the close of expert discovery 21 days after service of motions
Dispositive Motions and Motions to Bifurcate Trial (last day to file) Oppositions to Dispositive Motions and Motions to Bifurcate Trial Replies to Dispositive Motions and Motions to Bifurcate Trial Completion and Filing of Pretrial Order
7 days after service of opposition briefs
TBD TBD TBD
Trial
DATED: January 29, 2009 By /s/ Yung-Ming Chou Yung Ming Chou Attorneys for Defendant SYSCAN, INC. DATED: January 29, 2009 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
By /s/ Sang N. Dang Sang N. Dang Attorneys for Plaintiff PLUSTEK INC.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
4
Case No. C 07-05718 JL
Case 3:07-cv-05718-JL
Document 29
Filed 01/29/2009
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
KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
[PROPOSED] ORDER It is so ORDERED. February 6, 2009 DATED: _____________________ _____________________________________ U.S. CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
5
Case No. C 07-05718 JL
]]>
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?
