Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al

Filing 116

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 2, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2010)

Download PDF
Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al Doc. 116 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 GLENN E. WESTREICH (SBN 100457) EDWARD C. KWOK (SBN 144302) STEVEN M. LEVITAN (SBN 148716) JENNIFER M. LANTZ (SBN 202252) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 2033 Gateway Place, Suite 400 San Jose, California 95110 Phone: (408) 660-4120 Facsimile: (408) 660-4121 Email: glenn.westreich@haynesboone.com edward.kwok@haynesboone.com steve.levitan@haynesboone.com jennifer.lantz@haynesboone.com Attorneys for Defendants uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, SAPPHIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, and SILICON XTAL CORPORATION Yitai Hu (SBN 248085) (yitai.hu@alston.com) Kevin C. Trock (SBN 161787) (kevin.trock@alston.com) S.H. Michael Kim (SBN 203491) (michael.kim@alston.com) ALSTON & BIRD LLP 275 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-4008 Telephone: 650-838-2000 Facsimile: 650-838-2001 Attorneys for Plaintiffs RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORP. and RICHTEK USA, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION,ET AL., Defendants. Case No. C09-05659 WHA [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Case No. 09-cv-5659 WHA Dockets.Justia.com 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 Pursuant to this Court's October 25, 2010 Case Management Order, Defendants uPI Semiconductor Corporation, Sapphire Technology Limited and Silicon Xtal Corporation (collectively, "Defendants") and Plaintiffs Richtek Technology Corporation and Richtek USA, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by and through their respective counsel of record, jointly propose a Claim Construction Briefing Schedule as follows: Disclosure of Asserted Claims/Infringement Contentions Defendants' Invalidity Contentions Exchange of Proposed Claim Terms for Construction Exchange of Preliminary Constructions and Extrinsic Evid. Joint Claim Construction Statement Completion of Claim Construction Discovery Plaintiffs' Opening Claim Construction Briefs Defendants' Response Claim Construction Briefs Plaintiffs' Reply Claim Construction Briefs 11/04/2010 12/20/2010 01/17/2011 02/07/2011 02/28/2011 03/21/2011 04/08/2011 04/22/2011 04/29/2011 WHEREAS, the proposed Claims Construction Briefing Schedule will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Defendants and Plaintiffs, through their respective counsel, that the parties will use the dates set forth above to disclose and brief the parties' positions on claim construction. Dated: November 1, 2010 Respectfully submitted, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP By: /s/ Glenn E. Westreich Glenn E. Westreich Attorney for Defendants UPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., SAPPHIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, and SILICON XTAL CORP. 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE FOR CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION Case No. 09-cv-5659 WHA 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: November 1, 2010 Respectfully submitted, ALSTON & BIRD LLP By: /s/ Kevin C. Trock Kevin C. Trock Attorney for Plaintiffs RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORP. and RICHTEK USA, INC. Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X.B. regarding non-filing signatories, Glenn E. Westreich hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation has been obtained from Kevin C. Trock. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: November ____, 2010 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP United States District Judge 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE FOR CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION Case No. 09-cv-5659 WHA

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?