Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation

Filing 397

ORDER, Motions terminated: 396 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Request to Postpone Case Management Conference filed by Sidense Corporation. 4/23/14 case management conference is vacated.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 4/16/14. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
ROGER L. COOK (State Bar No. 55208)
ROBERT D. TADLOCK (State Bar No. 238479)
SARA B. GIARDINA (State Bar No. 278954)
Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
SIDENSE CORP.

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY INC.,

Case No. CV 10-02066 SI

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.

JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

14
SIDENSE CORP.,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. CV 10-02066 SI

-1-

JOINT STIPULATION

1

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2 and the Court’s Standing Case Management Conference

2
3

Order, Plaintiff Kilopass Technology, Inc. and Defendant Sidense Corp. (collectively “the

4

Parties”) hereby request that the Further Case Management Conference scheduled for April 29,

5

2014 be continued until after the United States Supreme Court issues a ruling in Octane Fitness v.

6

Icon Health and Fitness, Dkt. No. 12-1184, which will clarify the law relating to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

7

The parties expect this decision to be published before the end of the Supreme Court’s current

8

term on June 30, 2014.
WHEREAS, Sidense Corp. appealed this Court’s denial of its request for attorneys’ fees

9
10

under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
WHEREAS, the Federal Circuit on April 1, 2014 issued the formal mandate following its

11
12

December 26, 2013 judgment vacating and remanding this Court’s decision denying Sidense

13

Corp.’s request for attorneys’ fees;
WHEREAS, this Court on April 3, 2014 set a Further Case Management Conference for

14
15

Tuesday April 29, 2014;
WHEREAS, the only issue to be addressed on remand is whether Sidense Corp. is entitled

16
17

to attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Octane Fitness, is considering issues

18
19

related to 35 U.S.C. § 285 that will likely clarify issues governing the remaining disputes in this

20

lawsuit;
WHEREAS, this is the first requested extension following the Federal Circuit’s decision

21
22

and there are no other scheduled dates besides the Further Case Management Conference;
WHEREAS, good cause exists for the requested continuance to avoid wasting the Court’s

23
24

time and the Parties’ resources briefing issues relating to attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285

25

before the Supreme Court clarifies the appropriate standards for determining relief under that

26

statute;

27
28

ACCORDINGLY, the Parties request that the Court continue the scheduled Further Case
Management Conference until after the Supreme Court rules in Octane. The Parties will promptly
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. CV 10-02066 SI

-2-

1

notify the Court of such ruling and request that the Further Case Management Conference then be

2

scheduled for the next available date on the Court’s calendar that allows the Parties reasonable

3

time, e.g., 14 days, to file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement in advance.

4
5
6

DATED: April 15, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

7
8
9
10

By: /s/ Robert D. Tadlock

ROBERT D. TADLOCK
Attorneys for Defendant
SIDENSE CORP.

11
12
13
14
15

DURIE TANGRI LLP
By: /s/ Alex Feerst

ALEX FEERST
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. CV 10-02066 SI

-3-

1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R 5-1(i)(3),
RE E-FILING ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE SIGNATORIES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

In accord with the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of other signatories who are
listed on the signature pages. I shall maintain records to support this concurrence for subsequent
production for the Court if so ordered, or for inspection upon request by a party until one year after
final resolution of the action (including appeal, if any).

9
10

April 15, 2014

/s/ Robert D. Tadlock

11
12
13
ORDER

14
15
16

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
4/16/14

DATE:_______________

17

__________________________________
THE HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

63809274 v1
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. CV 10-02066 SI

-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
ROGER L. COOK (State Bar No. 55208)
ROBERT D. TADLOCK (State Bar No. 238479)
SARA B. GIARDINA (State Bar No. 278954)
Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
SIDENSE CORP.

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY INC.,

Case No. CV 10-02066 SI

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

DECLARATION OF ROBERT D.
TADLOCK IN SUPPORT OF JOINT
REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SIDENSE CORP.,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tadlock Declaration ISO Joint Request to Continue Case Mgmt Conference
CASE NO. CV 10-02066 SI

1

I, Robert Tadlock, declare that:

2

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted to

3

practice before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, and

4

am one of the attorneys representing Sidense Corp. in the above-captioned matters. I make this

5

declaration pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2(a) on personal knowledge and if called as a witness could

6

and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

7

2. Good cause exists for the requested continuance to avoid wasting the Court’s time and the

8

Parties’ resources briefing issues relating to attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 before the

9

Supreme Court clarifies the appropriate standards for determining relief under that statute in

10
11
12
13
14
15

Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness, Dkt. No. 12-1184.
3. This is the first request to modify the Court’s schedule since the case returned from the
Federal Circuit.
4. The requested continuance would not impact any other scheduled deadlines as no other
deadlines have yet been set.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

16

foregoing statements are true and correct. Executed this 15th day of April, 2014 at San Francisco,

17

California.

18
19

DATED:

20

Respectfully submitted,
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

21
22

By:

/s/ Robert D. Tadlock

ROBERT D. TADLOCK

23

Attorneys for Defendant
SIDENSE CORP.

24
25
26

63809274 v1

27
28
Tadlock Declaration ISO Joint Request to Continue Case Mgmt Conference
CASE NO. CV 10-02066 SI

-1-