Barnes & Noble Inc. v. LSI Corporation et al.

Filing 123

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 122 Second Amendment to January 31, 2012 Case Management Order filed by Barnesandnoble.com LLC, LSI Corporation, Agere Systems, Inc.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/23/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
John B. Quinn (Bar No. 90378)
865 S Figueroa St 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10
11

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13

David Eiseman (Bar No. 114758)
Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. 237649)
Carl G. Anderson (Bar No. 239927)
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Barnes & Noble, Inc. and
barnesandnoble.com llc

CHARLENE M. MORROW (CSB NO.
136411)
[e-mail]
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI (CSB NO.
168633)
[e-mail]
HECTOR J. RIBERA (CSB NO. 221511)
[e-mail]
RAVI RANGANATH (CSB NO. 272981)
[e-mail]
YIXIN ZHANG (CSB No. 270527)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, California 94041
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
LSI Corporation and
Agere Systems Inc.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17
18

BARNES & NOBLE, INC. and
BARNESANDNOBLE.COM LLC,

19
Plaintiffs,
20
v.
21
22
23

LSI CORPORATION and
AGERE SYSTEMS INC.,

Case No. 11-cv-02709 EMC
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
SECOND AMENDMENT TO JANUARY
31, 2012 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Trial Date: None set

Defendants.

24
25

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc

26

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. (“Defendants”)

27

(collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate as recited

28

below and jointly request that the Court amend the current case management schedule as set forth
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME FOR
PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES

CASE NO.: 11-CV-02709 EMC

1

below.

2
3

WHEREAS, the Court, by Order dated January 31, 2012 [Dkt. No. 84], issued a Case
Management Order setting forth the case schedule through claim construction;

4
5

WHEREAS, the Court, by Order dated March 26, 2012 [Dkt. No. 92], amended that
schedule;

6

WHEREAS, at the Further Case Management Conference on June 19, 2012 [Dkt. No.

7

119], the Court directed the parties to submit a joint stipulation with a revised case schedule

8

incorporating deadlines for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 9, 13, 15, and

9

16 and for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Patent Local Rule 3-3 disclosures;

10

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have agreed to serve substantive responses to Defendants’

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Interrogatory Nos. 9, 13, 15 and 16 on or before September 24, 2012, the date they are due to

12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP

11

serve their invalidity contentions and related disclosures pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-3 and

13

3-4;

14

WHEREAS, Defendants have agreed to provide on or before November 5, 2012 a

15

substantive response to each of Plaintiffs’ invalidity contentions, including but not limited to an

16

explanation of why Defendants contend that the prior art cited in Plaintiffs’ invalidity contentions

17

does not render each asserted claim anticipated or obvious;

18

WHEREAS, at the Further Case Management Conference on June 19, 2012 [Dkt. No.

19

119], the parties and the Court agreed that material presented at the technology tutorial would not

20

be admissible for any purpose or be used during cross-examination;

21

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE that, in view of the foregoing, material presented

22

at the technology tutorial shall not be admissible for any purpose or be used during cross

23

examination, and the case schedule shall be modified as set forth below:

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME FOR
PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES

2

CASE NO.: 11-CV-02709 EMC

1
2
3
4

Proposed Date

Event 
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
Contentions and Accompanying Document Production 

7/23/12

Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions and Accompanying
Document Production 

9/24/12

Plaintiffs to Provide Substantive Responses to
Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 9, 13, 15 and 16

9/24/12

Exchange Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for
Construction 

10/25/12
11/5/12

11

Defendants to Provide Substantive Responses to
Plaintiffs’ Invalidity Contentions

12

Exchange Preliminary Claim Constructions and
Supporting References 

11/15/12

13

File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement 

12/13/12

14

ADR Deadline

12/21/12

15

Completion of Claim Construction Discovery 

1/10/13

16

Serve and File Opening Claim Construction Brief 

1/24/13

17

Serve and File Claim Construction Response Brief 

2/7/13

Serve and File Claim Construction Reply Brief 

2/14/13

Serve and File Claim Construction Sur-Reply Brief

2/21/13

5
6
7
8
9

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

10

18
19

Tutorial (subject to the Court’s availability)

2/25/13 & 2/26/13 (2:30-4:30pm)

Claim Construction Hearing (subject to the Court’s
availability) 

3/11/13, 3/12/13 & (9:30-4:30pm)
3/13/13
(9:30-1:30pm)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME FOR
PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES

3

CASE NO.: 11-CV-02709 EMC

1

Dated: July 19, 2012

FENWICK & WEST LLP

2
3

By: /s/ Ravi Ranganath
Ravi Ranganath
Attorneys for Defendants
LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc.

4
5
6

Dated: July 19, 2012

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

7
8

By: /s/ Carl G. Anderson
Carl G. Anderson
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Barnes & Noble, Inc. and
barnesandnoble.com llc

9
10
11

13
14
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO
ORDERED.

23

R NIA

dwa
Judge E

ER

H

22

RT

21

hen

rd M. C

NO

20

OO
IT IS S
DIFIED
AS MO

FO

19

The Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge DERED
R

LI

18

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

17

S

16

A

15

UNIT
ED

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME FOR
PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES

4

CASE NO.: 11-CV-02709 EMC

1

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

2

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of

3

perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

4
5

Dated: July 19, 2012

FENWICK & WEST LLP

6
7

By: /s/ Ravi Ranganath
Ravi Ranganath
Attorneys for Defendants
LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc.

8
9
10
11

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION REGARDING TIME FOR
PATENT LOCAL RULE DISCLOSURES

5

CASE NO.: 11-CV-02709 EMC