Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Sequenom, Inc. et al

Filing 228

ORDER, Motions terminated: 226 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Case Schedule filed by Verinata Health, Inc., The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/10/2015 03 :30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Selection set for 2/23/2015 08:30 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Jury Trial set for 2/23/2015 08:30 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Motion Hearing set for 11/14/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 2/25/14. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Edward R. Reines (135960) (edward.reines@weil.com) Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 KAYE SCHOLER LLP Michael J. Malecek (171034) (michael.malecek@kayescholer.com) Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 319-4500 Facsimile: (650) 319-4700 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and CounterclaimDefendants VERINATA HEALTH, INC. and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY Attorneys for Defendants and CounterclaimPlaintiffs SEQUENOM, INC. and SEQUENOM CENTER FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE LLC 5 6 7 8 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Robert F. McCauley (162056) Stanford Research Park 3300 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 849 6600 Facsimile: (650) 849 6666 9 10 11 12 Attorneys for Defendant THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 18 19 VERINATA HEALTH, INC., and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Plaintiffs, 20 THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG, 23 24 25 Defendant, Hon. Susan Illston and SEQUENOM, INC., and SEQUENOM CENTER FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE, LLC, 26 Defendants/CounterclaimPlaintiffs, 27 28 PROPOSED STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER v. 21 22 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00865-SI v. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE Case No. 3:12-cv-00865-SI 1 2 VERINATA HEALTH, INC., and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Counterclaim-Defendants, 3 4 5 6 and ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED, Nominal CounterclaimDefendant. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE 2 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00865-SI 1 Further to the Court’s May 14, 2014 Order permitting the filing of the First Supplemental 2 Complaint, the parties Verinata Health, Inc. (“Verinata”), The Board of Trustees of the Leland 3 Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”), Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular 4 Medicine LLC (together “Sequenom”), and The Chinese University of Hong Kong (“CUHK”) 5 jointly submit this statement and stipulation regarding the case schedule and future conduct of the 6 case. 7 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 8 The parties in this action have met and conferred, and have agreed to the case schedule and 9 future conduct of the case presented below. The parties respectfully request that the Court modify 10 the current pretrial and trial schedule to take into account new party CUHK and the new issues 11 raised in the First Supplemental Complaint. The parties propose that the § 146 issues be tried in a 12 bench trial by the Court (if necessary)1 before the jury trial. 13 The parties agree that the sole issue to be tried during the § 146 proceeding is whether 14 Stanford’s U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018 and U.S. Patent Application No. 12/393,833 satisfy the written 15 description requirement for Stanford’s claims. In the event CUHK prevails on this issue, the parties 16 agree the Court will order that the judgments entered in Interference Nos. 105,920, 105,923, and 17 105,924 are affirmed. In the event Verinata and Stanford prevail on this issue, the parties agree that 18 the Court will order priority of invention in favor of Quake for the subject matter of the Counts in 19 the interferences. The parties also agree that under either outcome they will not seek remand to the 20 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for consideration of additional issues raised in the interferences, 21 and they further agree that the Court’s decision in the § 146 proceeding shall be appealable. 22 The parties respectfully request that the Court vacate the currently scheduled dates and order 23 the revised schedule proposed herein by the parties. The parties respectfully request that the Court 24 set February 23, 2015 (the date previously scheduled for trial in Verinata Health, Inc. et al. v. Ariosa 25 Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Case No. 12-cv-05501) as the date for the bench trial (if required) or the jury 26 27 28 1 The parties acknowledge the possibility that the court may resolve the § 146 issue on summary judgment. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE 1 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00865-SI I 1 trial for all remaining claims. In the event that a bench trial is needed, the parties respectfully 2 request that the jury trial follow immediately after the bench trial. The parties respectfully propose 3 that the time/deadlines for pretrial preparation would be extended consistent with the new trial dates. 4 The parties have agreed and propose that the Court order as follows: 5 I. With respect to the § 146 issues, the parties agree and respectfully request the Court 6 to order that: 7 a. There will be no new fact discovery regarding the § 146 issues absent good 8 cause shown. In the event that good cause is shown and further fact discovery 9 is taken, the schedule set forth below may need to be extended accordingly. 10 b. The records from Interference Nos. 105,920, 105,923, and 105,924 will be 11 entered into evidence in this action and may also be utilized for the purposes 12 of the § 146 issues (“the PTAB Record”). 13 c. CUHK may submit an expert report in support of its positions on the § 146 14 issues, and Verinata/Stanford may submit a rebuttal report. After reviewing 15 Stanford/Verinata’s rebuttal report, CUHK may decide to submit a rebuttal 16 report to Stanford/Verinata’s rebuttal report. 17 discovery previously scheduled or taken in this matter may be utilized for the 18 purposes of the § 146 issues. 19 II. Fact and expert witness CUHK and Verinata/Stanford have further agreed that in consideration for agreeing 20 to proceed as set out herein, and if their agreement is approved by the Court, CUHK 21 will consent to personal jurisdiction in this District for purposes of the § 146 action. 22 In further consideration, Verinata/Stanford will dismiss without prejudice Action No. 23 1:14-cv-688 filed on June 9, 2014 in the Eastern District of Virginia relating to the 24 § 146 issues. 25 III. Unless Sequenom and/or CUHK successfully obtain a summary judgment of 26 invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018, the § 146 issues will be tried to the Court in a 27 bench trial (before the jury trial) scheduled for February 23, 2015. Subject to the 28 outcome of motions for summary judgment, any remaining issues of infringement, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE 2 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00865-SI 1 CERTIFICATION 2 I, Derek C. Walter, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to 3 file this Stipulation. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that all signatories 4 listed and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, have concurred in this filing. 5 /s/ Derek C. Walter Derek C. Walter 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 7/25/14 12 Dated: Honorable Susan Illston United States District Court Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE 5 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00865-SI

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?