ADC Technology Inc. v. Palm Inc.

Filing 88

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 87 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (Joint) Regarding Continuance of March 27, 2014 Case Management Conference filed by ADC Technology Inc. Case Management Statement due by 5/22/2014. Case Management Conference set for 5/29/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/25/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2014)

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 MARCH 27, 2014 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Civil L.R. 7-12

25
26
27
28
Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of March 27, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

The parties to this action—plaintiff ADC Technology, Inc. (“ADC”) and defendants Palm,
Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (collectively, “Palm”)—respectfully submit this stipulation, requesting
that the Court continue the Case Management Conference previously scheduled in this action for
March 27, 2014 to a date in May, 2014, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.
Good cause exists for this requested continuance of the Case Management Conference, as set
forth below:


8

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

9
10

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

11
12



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

16

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

18

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

19

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

20

23
24
25

On July 25, 2011, the Court granted the stipulated stay motion and ordered that “[t]his
action is stayed pending final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit”

17

22

In July 2011, defendant Palm filed a stipulated motion to stay this case pending final
determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit by the PTO. (See Docket

14

21

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

13

15

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

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

In May and September, 2012 and in January, May, September, and December, 2013,
defendant Palm and plaintiff ADC filed stipulations requesting continuance of the case
management conference, noting that there has not yet been a final determination of the
reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit and indicating agreement that a continued stay
in this action was appropriate. (See Docket Nos. 72, 74, 77, 82, 85.) The Court granted

26
27
28

-2Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of March 27, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

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

2
3

for March 27, 2014. (See Docket Nos. 73, 75, 78, 81, 83, 84, 86.)


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

10

patent. In March, 2014, ADC submitted new petitions to terminate the reexaminations

11
12

which ADC expects to be granted within the next month.


13

parties’ efforts to resolve the case. The parties believe they need additional time to fully

15

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ADC and Palm have continued to engage in more serious discussions in order to try and
resolve the dispute. However, the pendency of the reexaminations has hampered the

14

16

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

exhaust reasonable efforts to settle the case.


The parties presently agree that the Case Management Conference should be continued to
a date in May 2014, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court in view of
the pending reexaminations and to allow the parties some brief additional time to try and
settle the case without burdening the Court. The parties further agree that if any of the
reexaminations are completed before the rescheduled Case Management Conference,
either party may file a motion to have the stay lifted, and the other party may oppose the
motion.

In view of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Case Management
Conference previously set for March 27, 2014, be continued to a date in May 2014, or an alternative
future date that is convenient to the Court.

26
27
28

-3Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of March 27, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1

Dated: March 13, 2014

2

/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]

3
4
5
6
7

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

8
9
10
11

ATTORNEYS for Plaintiff
ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Dated: March 13, 2014

/s/

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

23
24
25
26
27
28

-4Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of March 27, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1
2

Francisco, California.

A joint CMC statement shall be filed by May 22, 2014.

10

14

D

HON.SO ORDERE CHEN
EDWARD M.
IT IS States IFIED Judge
United
D District

AS MO

dward
Judge E

ER

n

M. Che

H

13

RT

12

_________________________________

NO

11

UNIT
ED

9

25

Dated: March ____, 2014

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

8

S

7

R NIA

6

29

continued to May ___, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

FO

5

The Case Management Conference previously set for March 27, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. is hereby

LI

4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

3

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

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

-5Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of March 27, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1
2
3
4
5

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
I, Richard B. Megley, Jr., hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence
in the electronic filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories. I declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 13, 2014, in Chicago, Illinois.

6
7

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 March 27, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC