ADC Technology Inc. v. Palm Inc.

Filing 78

STIPULATION AND ORDER 77 Regarding Continuance of January 24, 2013 Case Management Conference filed by Palm Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company Case Management Statement due by 5/9/2013. Case Management Conference set for 5/16/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/10/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2013)

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 AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE
OF JANUARY 24, 2013 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Civil L.R. 7-12

23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of January 24, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

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

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

January 24, 2013 to a date in May 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9



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

10

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

11

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

12



13
14

In mid-2011, pursuant to a third-party request, the PTO ordered reexamination of each of
the three patents-in-suit.



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

15

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

16

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

17



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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23



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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

-2Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of January 24, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

Docket No. 72.) The Court thereafter granted the stipulated request and re-set the case

2

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

3



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

4

continuance of the case management conference until a date in January 2013, again

5

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

6

patents-in-suit and indicating agreement that a continued stay in this action was

7

appropriate. (See Docket No. 74.) The Court thereafter granted the stipulated request

8

and re-set the case management conference for January 25, 2013. (See Docket No. 75.)

9



10
11

In December 2012, the Clerk issued a notice resetting the case management conference
for January 24, 2013. (See Docket No. 76.)



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

12

suit. Although the PTO issued a reexamination certificate for the ‘136 patent in

13

December 2011, the reexamination proceedings that the PTO initiated in mid-2011 on the

14

‘605 and ‘361 patents remain ongoing. And in addition to the reexamination proceedings

15

initiated by the PTO in mid-2011, the PTO has initiated additional reexamination

16

proceedings on the ‘136, ‘361, and ‘605 patents in July, November, and December 2012,

17

respectively. Reexamination proceedings for all of the patents-in-suit thus remain

18

ongoing.

19



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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

completed before the rescheduled Case Management Conference, either party may file a

24

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

25

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

26

Conference previously set for January 24, 2013 be continued to a date in May 2013, or an alternative

27

future date that is convenient to the Court.

28

-3Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of January 24, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

Dated: January 10, 2013

/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

Dated: January 10, 2013

/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]

14
15
16
17
18
19

Martin L. Fineman, (SBN 104413)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery St., Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111-6533
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

20
21
22

ATTORNEYS for Plaintiff
ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-4Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of January 24, 2013 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 January 24, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. is hereby

3

16
continued to May ___, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

4

9
Francisco, California. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by May ___, 2013.

IT I
DIFIED
AS MO

RT

dwa
Judge E

ER

12

A

H

11

hen

rd M. C

NO

10

R NIA

9

HON. EDWARD M. ED
R CHEN
United SO ORDE Judge
States District
S

FO

8

_________________________________

LI

7

UNIT
ED

10
Dated: January ___, 2013

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

6

S

5

N

13

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

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

-5Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of January 24, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1
2

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
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 January 10, 2013, in Palo Alto, California.

6

By:

7

/s/ Nathan L. Walker____________
Nathan L. Walker

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6ActiveUS 104661973v.1

Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of January 24, 2013 Case Management Conference