Acer, Inc. et al v. Technology Properties Limited et al

Filing 320

ORDER appointing technical advisor. Signed by Judge James Ware on January 11, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8

Acer, Inc.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER APPOINTING TECHNICAL
ADVISOR

v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,

12
13

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21

/

Barco NV,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,

22

Defendants.

23
24

/

HTC Corp.,

14
15

NO. C 08-00877 JW
NO. C 08-00882 JW
NO. C 08-05398 JW

/

On December 19, 2011, the Court issued a Notice of Intent apprising the parties of its intent

25

to appoint a Technical Advisor, Kwan Chan.1 The Notice of Intent provided that any party to the

26

litigation wishing to object to Mr. Chan’s appointment “shall file a Notice of Objection” with the

27
1

28

(Notice of Intent to Appoint a Technical Advisor, hereafter, “Notice of Intent,” Docket
Item No. 309 in No. C 08-00877 JW.)

1

assigned Magistrate Judge by January 3, 2012. (Notice of Intent at 4.) On January 10, 2012, Judge

2

Laporte notified the Court that no objection has been filed.

3
4
5
6

Accordingly, the Court appoints Kwan Chan as a Technical Advisor for these related cases
under the following terms:
1. Any advice provided to the Court by Mr. Chan will not be based on any extra-record
information.

7

2. To the extent that the Court may ask Mr. Chan to provide a formal written report on

8

technical advice concerning the case, a copy of the formal written report prepared by Mr. Chan shall

9

be provided to the parties. However, the Court reserves the right to have informal verbal
communications with Mr. Chan which are not included in any formal written report.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

3. Mr. Chan may attend all case-related court proceedings.

12

4. Mr. Chan may review any pleadings, motions or documents submitted to the Court.

13

5. As a Technical Advisor, Mr. Chan will make no written findings of fact and will not

14

supply any evidence to the Court. Thus, Mr. Chan will be outside the purview of “expert witnesses”

15

under Fed. R. Evid. 706. As such, the provisions in Rule 706 for depositions and questioning of

16

expert witnesses will be inapplicable to Mr. Chan. See Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 155-

17

67 (1st Cir. 1988).

18
19
20

6. Mr. Chan will have no contact with any of the parties or their counsel except for billing
purposes.
7. Each party shall bear the cost of the Technical Advisor on a per capita basis, payable in

21

advance. Because the Court has set this case on an expedited schedule–and in particular, because

22

the Court has set a Case Tutorial and Markman hearing for January 26 and 27, 2012–the parties shall

23

immediately meet and confer with Mr. Chan and develop a plan to set up a trust account whereby

24

the parties shall deposit, initially, $15,000 each to cover the anticipated fees and costs. Mr. Chan

25

shall issue statements to the parties and draw from the trust account every fifteen (15) days for his

26

performance of the appointment. Mr. Chan will bill at the rate of $450.00 per hour.

27
28

2

1

The Technical Advisor shall report to the Court on a periodic basis, every sixty (60) days,

2

regarding the state of his fees and expenses and make a recommendation to the Court as to whether

3

the trust account needs additional deposits from the parties as the case progresses.

4

All matters pertaining to the fees of Mr. Chan are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

5

8. On or before January 12, 2012, Mr. Chan shall file a declaration that he will adhere to

6
7

the terms of his appointment.
9. On or before January 13, 2012, the parties shall lodge with the Court two copies of: (1)

8

the prosecution history of the patents-in-suit in this case; and (2) the claim construction briefing.

9

The prosecution history and claim construction briefing shall be lodged in three-ring binders.
The Clerk of Court shall immediately add Mr. Chan to the docket.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Dated: January 11, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Deepak Gupta [e-mail]
Eugene Y. Mar [e-mail]
Harold H. Davis [e-mail]
James Carl Otteson [e-mail]
Jas S Dhillon [e-mail]
Jeffrey M. Fisher [e-mail]
Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff [e-mail]
John L. Cooper [e-mail]
Kyle Dakai Chen [e-mail]
Mark R. Weinstein [e-mail]
Michelle Gail Breit [e-mail]
Nan E. Joesten [e-mail]
Paul A. Alsdorf [e-mail]
Samuel Citron O’Rourke [e-mail]
Stephanie Powers Skaff [e-mail]
Timothy Paar Walker [e-mail]
William Sloan Coats [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
Dated: January 11, 2012
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy