ADC Technology Inc. v. Palm Inc.

Filing 90

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 89 Joint MOTION to Continue Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance of May 29, 2014 Case Management Conference filed by Palm Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company Case Management Statement due by 6/19/2014. Case Management Conference set for 6/26/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/27/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

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]

7
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 MAY 29, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Civil L.R. 7-12

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of May 29, 2014 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

May 29, 2014 for three weeks, to June 19, 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 a date in May 2012. (Id.)

21



In 2012 and 2013, and in March 2014, defendant Palm and plaintiff ADC filed

22

stipulations requesting continuance of the case management conference, noting that there

23

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

24

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

25

Docket Nos. 72, 74, 77, 82, 87.) The Court granted these requests, and the case

26

management conference is currently set for May 29, 2014. (See Docket Nos. 73, 75, 78,

27

81, 83, 84, 88.)

28

-2Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of May 29, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1



Although the PTO issued a reexamination certificates for the ’136, ‘361, and ‘605 patents

2

in December 2011 and September 2013, the PTO initiated additional reexamination

3

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

4

respectively. ADC represents that the PTO recently dismissed all of these additional

5

reexamination proceedings and that there are no reexaminations proceedings pending

6

with respect to ADC’s asserted patents.

7



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

8

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

9

reasonable efforts to settle the case.

10



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

11

June 19, 2014, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court to allow the

12

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

13

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

14

Conference previously set for May 29, 2014, be continued to June 19, 2014, or an alternative future

15

date that is convenient to the Court.

16
Dated: May 21, 2014
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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

26
27
28

-3Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of May 29, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Dated: May 21, 2014

/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.

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

-4Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of May 29, 2014 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 May 29, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. is hereby

3

26
continued to June ___, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,

4

San Francisco, California.

12

R NIA

dwar
Judge E

ER

H

11

RT

10

en

d M. Ch

NO

9

RD
IS SO O FIED
IT HON. EDWARD M. CHEN
DI
AS MO
United States District Judge
FO

8

_________________________________
ERED

LI

Dated: ________________, 2014
7

A

5/27

UNIT
ED

6

RT
U
O

S

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

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 And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of May 29, 2014 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 May 21, 2014, in Palo Alto, California.
By: _/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

-6Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Continuance
of May 29, 2014 Case Management Conference
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC