ADC Technology Inc. v. Palm Inc.

Filing 86

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 85 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (JOINT) Regarding Continuance of December 10, 2013 Case Management Conference filed by Palm Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company Case Management Statement due by 3/20/2014. Case Management Conference set for 3/27/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/2/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)

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]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8

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

9

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14

ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

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

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

Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE
OF DECEMBER 10, 2013 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Civil L.R. 7-12

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of December 10, 2013 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

December 10, 2013 to a date in March 2014, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the

5

Court.

6
7
8

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

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

9

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

10
11



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

12
13

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



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, May, and September 2013, defendant Palm

23

and plaintiff ADC filed stipulations requesting continuance of the case management

24

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

25

of all of the patents-in-suit and indicating agreement that a continued stay in this action

26

was appropriate. (See Docket Nos. 72, 74, 77, 82.) The Court granted the stipulated

27
28

-2Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of December 10, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

requests and re-set the case management conference, which is currently set for December

2

10, 2013. (See Docket Nos. 73, 75, 78, 81, 83, 84.)

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 issued a reexamination certificates for the ’136, ‘361,

5

and ‘605 patents in December 2011 and September 2013, the PTO initiated additional

6

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

7

December 2012, respectively. ADC represents that it is still in the process of dismissing

8

before the PTO all of these additional reexamination proceedings and that, upon

9

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

10
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 March 2014, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court in view

16

of the pending reexaminations and to allow the parties some brief additional time to try

17

and settle the case without burdening the Court. The parties further agree that if any of

18

the reexaminations are completed before the rescheduled Case Management Conference,

19

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

20

motion.

21

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

22

Conference previously set for December 10, 2013, be continued to a date in March 2014, 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 December 10, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

Dated: November 26, 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]
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: November 26, 2013

/s/

Richard B. Megley

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 December 10, 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 December 10, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. is
27
hereby continued to March ___, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate

4

Avenue, San Francisco, California.

ER

13

R NIA
FO

dwar
Judge E

H

12

RT

11

en

d M. Ch

NO

10

O OR
IT IS S
IFIED
S MOD
A

LI

9

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District JudgeED
DER

A

8

S DISTRICT
TE
C
_________________________________
TA

RT
U
O

7

12/2
Dated: November ____, 2013

S

6

UNIT
ED

5

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

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

-5Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of December 10, 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 signatory. I declare under

4

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

5
6
7

Executed on November 26, 2013, in Palo Alto, California.
By: _/s/
Nathan L. Walker

__________________

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 December 10, 2013 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC