ADC Technology Inc. v. Palm Inc.

Filing 83

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 82 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Continuance of September 19, 2013 Case Management Conference filed by ADC Technology Inc. Case Management Statement due by 11/27/2013. Case Management Conference set for 12/5/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/10/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

MARTIN L. FINEMAN, California State Bar No. 104413
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery St., Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111-6533
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
RAYMOND P. NIRO (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
DEAN D. NIRO (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
PATRICK F. SOLON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
RICHARD B. MEGLEY, JR. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JOSEPH A. CULIG (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
NIRO, HALLER & NIRO
181 W. Madison St., Suite 4600
Chicago, IL 60602-4515
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16
17

ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

18
19
20

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

21
Defendants.
22
23
24

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

Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE
OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Civil L.R. 7-12

25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance of September 19, 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

September 19, 2013 to a date in November 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to

5

the Court.

6
7
8

Good cause exists for this requested continuance of the Case Management Conference, as set
forth below:


9

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

10
11

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

12
13

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

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

14

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

15

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

16



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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22



In May and September, 2012 and in January and May, 2013, defendant Palm and plaintiff

23

ADC filed stipulations requesting continuance of the case management conference,

24

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

25

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

26

appropriate. (See Docket Nos. 72, 74, 77.) The Court granted the stipulated requests and

27
28

-2Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance of September 19, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

re-set the case management conference, which is currently set for September 19, 2013.

2

(See Docket No. 73, 75, 78, 81.)

3



To date, there has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the

4

patents-in-suit. Although the PTO has issued a reexamination certificate for the ’136

5

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

6

2011 on the ‘605 and ‘361 patents remain ongoing. The PTO had initiated additional

7

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

8

December 2012, respectively. However, ADC represents that all of those additional

9

reexamination proceedings are in the process of being dismissed and, upon dismissal,

10

there will be no reexaminations proceedings pending with respect to the ‘136 patent.

11



Recently, ADC and Palm have engaged in more serious discussions in order to try and

12

resolve the dispute. The parties believe they need additional time to fully exhaust

13

reasonable efforts to settle the case.

14



The parties presently agree that the Case Management Conference should be continued to

15

a date in November 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court in

16

view of the pending reexaminations on the ‘605 and ‘361 patents and to allow the parties

17

some brief additional time to try and settle the case without burdening the Court. The

18

parties further agree that if any of the reexaminations are completed before the

19

rescheduled Case Management Conference, either party may file a motion to have the

20

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

21

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

22

Conference previously set for September 19, 2013, be continued to a date in November 2013, or an

23

alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.

24
25
26
27
28

-3Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance of September 19, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

Dated: September 10, 2013

/s/

Nathan Walker (with permission)

Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303)
[e-mail]
Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128)
nathan.walker @wilmerhale.com
Christine Duh (SBN 228544)
[e-mail]
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

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

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Dated: September 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]
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.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-4Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance of September 19, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

The Case Management Conference previously set for September 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. is
December 5, 2013
hereby continued to November ___, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate

4

Avenue, San Francisco, California.

S

D
_________________________________
RDERE

ER

n

M. Che

FO

dward
Judge E

H

11

RT

10

NO

9

LI

8

R NIA

OO
IT IS S
HON. EDWARD M. D
DIFIE CHEN
AS MODistrict Judge
United States

A

7

10
Dated: September __, 2013

UNIT
ED

6

RT
U
O

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

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

-5Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance of September 19, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1
2

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
I, Richard B. Megley, Jr., hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence

3

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

4

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

5
6
7

Executed on September 10, 2013, in Chicago, Illinois.
By: _/s/Richard B. Megley, Jr.
Richard B. Megley, Jr.

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

-6Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance of September 19, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC