ADC Technology Inc. v. Palm Inc.

Filing 75

STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING CMC re 74 Stipulation filed by Palm Inc., ADC Technology Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company Case Management Statement due by 1/18/2013. Case Management Conference set for 1/25/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/18/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303)
[e-mail]
Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128)
nathan.walker @wilmerhale.com
Christine Duh (SBN 228544)
[e-mail]
Anna T. Lee (SBN 244961)
anna.lee @wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9

Attorneys for Defendants
PALM, INC. and
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14

ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
PALM, INC., and
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Defendants.

20
21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING
CONTINUANCE OF CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ; ORDER
Civil L.R. 7-12

23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation Requesting Continuance of Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

The parties to this action—plaintiff ADC Technology, Inc. (“ADC”) and defendants Palm,

1
2

Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (collectively, “Palm”)—respectfully submit this stipulation, requesting

3

that the Court continue the Case Management Conference previously scheduled in this action for

4

September 28, 2012 to a date in January 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the

5

Court.

6

Good cause exists for this requested continuance of the Case Management Conference, since

7

(a) this action is presently stayed pending reexamination of the patents-in-suit by the United States

8

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and (b) there has not yet been a final determination of the

9

reexamination of the patents-in-suit, as set forth below:

10



This is a patent case in which the plaintiff, ADC, asserts three patents—namely, U.S.

11

Patent Nos. 6,985,136 (the “’136 patent”), 7,057,605 (the “’605 patent”) and 7,567,361

12

(the “’361 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).

13



the three patents-in-suit.

14
15

In mid-2011, pursuant to a third-party request, the PTO ordered reexamination of each of



In July 2011, defendant Palm filed a stipulated motion to stay this case pending final

16

determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit by the PTO. (See Docket

17

No. 68.) Plaintiff ADC stipulated to this stay motion. (Id.)

18



On July 25, 2011, the Court granted the stipulated stay motion and ordered that “[t]his

19

action is stayed pending final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit”

20

by the PTO. (See Docket No. 70.) In its order, the Court instructed the parties to advise

21

the Court when the PTO has issued a final determination on reexamination. (Id.) In

22

addition, the Court set a case management conference for May 11, 2012, which was

23

subsequently re-set for May 18, 2012. (Id.)

24



In May 2012, defendant Palm and plaintiff ADC filed a joint stipulation requesting

25

continuance of the case management conference until a date in September 2012, noting

26

that there has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the patents-

27

in-suit and indicating agreement that a continued stay in this action was appropriate. (See

28

-2Joint Stipulation Requesting Continuance of Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

Docket No. 72.) The Court thereafter granted the joint stipulation and re-set the case

2

management conference for September 28, 2012. (See Docket No. 73.)

3



There has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the patents-in-

4

suit. The reexamination proceeding on the ’605 and ’361 patents remain ongoing. And

5

although the PTO issued a reexamination certificate for the ’136 patent earlier this year,

6

the PTO has thereafter initiated another reexamination proceeding on that patent that

7

remains ongoing.

8



The parties presently agree that (a) this action should remain stayed pending a final

9

determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit and (b) the Case Management

10

Conference should be continued to a date in January 2013, or an alternative future date

11

that is convenient to the Court. The parties further agree that if any of the reexaminations

12

are completed before the rescheduled Case Management Conference, either party may

13

file a motion to have the stay lifted, and the other party may oppose the motion.

14

In view of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Case Management

15

Conference previously set for September 28, 2012 be continued to a date in January 2013, or an

16

alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.

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

-3Joint Stipulation Requesting Continuance of Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

Dated: September 14, 2012

/s/ Nathan L. Walker_______
Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303)
[e-mail]
Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128)
nathan.walker @wilmerhale.com
Christine Duh (SBN 228544)
[e-mail]
Anna T. Lee (SBN 244961)
anna.lee @wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants
PALM, INC. and
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Dated: September 14, 2012

/s/ Richard B. Megley, Jr.____
Raymond P. Niro (pro hac vice)
Dean D. Niro (pro hac vice)
Patrick F. Solon (pro hac vice)
Richard B. Megley, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Joseph A. Culig (pro hac vice)
NIRO, HALLER & NIRO
181 West Madison, Suite 4600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Martin L. Fineman, (SBN 104413)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery St., Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111-6533
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

ATTORNEYS for Plaintiff
ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

24
25
26
27
28

-4Joint Stipulation Requesting Continuance of Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

The Case Management Conference previously set for September 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. is
25
hereby continued to January ___, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate
18
Avenue, San Francisco, California. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by January ___, 2013.

12

D

R NIA

AS MO

hen

rd M. C

dwa
Judge E

ER

H

11

RT

10

HON. EDWARD RED
ORDE M. CHEN
District
T IS SO
IUnited States IFIED Judge

NO

9

_________________________________

FO

8

UNIT
ED

7

18
Dated: September ___, 2012

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

6

S

5

LI

4

A

3

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

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

-5Joint Stipulation Requesting Continuance of Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

1
2

I, Nathan L. Walker, hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence in the

3

electronic filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories. I declare under

4

penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

5

Executed on September 14, 2012, in Palo Alto, California.

6

By: _ /s/ Nathan L. Walker__________________
Nathan L. Walker

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

-6-

28

Joint Stipulation Requesting Continuance of Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

ActiveUS 100992990v.1