Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
105
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 104 Joint Request to Continue Case Management Conference filed by Cepheid. Case Management Statement due by 5/31/2018. Initial Case Management Conference reset for 6/7/2018 09:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 05, 17th Floor. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/28/18. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
Erik R. Puknys (SBN 190926)
erik.puknys@finnegan.com
M. Paul Barker (SBN 243986)
paul.barker@finnegan.com
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3300 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone:
(650) 849-6600
Facsimile:
(650) 849-6666
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff Cepheid
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
CEPHEID,
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
15
16
17
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. and
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD.,
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT REQUEST TO C ONTINUE CMC
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
1
Plaintiff Cepheid filed this declaratory judgment action on August 21, 2012, seeking, inter
2
alia, a declaration that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,804,375 (“the ’375 patent”) and 6,127,155
3
(“the ’155 patent”) are not infringed, are invalid, and are otherwise unenforceable. Defendant Roche
4
Molecular Systems, Inc. moved to stay Counts I and II related to the ’375 patent pending final
5
resolution of a Swiss arbitration between the parties and moved to dismiss Counts III and IV related
6
to the ’155 patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On January 17, 2013, the Court issued its
7
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Motion to Dismiss (“Order”). ECF No. 68. The
8
Court stayed Counts I and II until further order of this Court and dismissed Counts III and IV for
9
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. With respect to Counts I and II, the Court directed the parties to
10
“update this Court within 30 days of the issuance of the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision on the issue of
11
jurisdiction.” Id. at 8.
12
Pursuant to the Order, the parties notified the Court that on August 1, 2013, the International
13
Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration issued a letter notifying the parties
14
that the Arbitral Tribunal had rendered a Partial Award on arbitral jurisdiction, dated July 30, 2013.
15
ECF No. 77. The Partial Award included an order concerning jurisdiction, in which the Arbitral
16
Tribunal concluded that it has jurisdiction to decide on the relief sought by the claimants (i.e., Roche
17
Molecular Systems, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd). Cepheid appealed the Arbitral Tribunal’s
18
jurisdictional decision. Id. On February 28, 2014 the Swiss Federal Court dismissed Cepheid’s
19
appeal in its entirety. On April 20, 2016 the Arbitral Tribunal issued a second Partial Award on
20
liability issues. The Arbitration is proceeding in accordance with the schedule set by the Arbitral
21
Tribunal.
22
Since the Court issued its January 2013 Order, the parties have jointly filed several
23
stipulations to continue the Initial Case Management Conference and the Court has entered those
24
stipulations. Specifically, on March 11, 2013, the Court reset the Case Management Conference
25
from March 14, 2013 to June 20, 2013 (ECF Nos. 72, 73); on June 7, 2013 the Court reset the Case
26
Management Conference from June 20, 2013 to October 10, 2013 (ECF Nos. 74, 75); on September
27
23, 2013 the Court reset the Case Management Conference from October 10, 2013 to March 6, 2014
28
(ECF Nos. 77, 78); on February 26, 2014 the Court reset the Case Management Conference from
1
JOINT REQUEST TO C ONTINUE CMC
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
1
March 6, 2014 to November 13, 2014 (ECF Nos. 81, 82); on November 7, 2014 the Court reset the
2
Case Management Conference from November 13, 2014 to March 26, 2015 (ECF Nos. 84, 85); on
3
March 13, 2015 the Court reset the Case Management Conference from March 26, 2015 to
4
September 24, 2015 (ECF Nos. 86, 87), ), which was reset sua sponte to September 23, 2015 (ECF
5
No. 88); on September 16, 2015, the Court reset the Case Management Conference from September
6
23, 2015 to April 21, 2016 (ECF Nos. 89, 90), on April 14, 2016, the Court reset the Case
7
Management Conference from April 21, 2016 to October 27, 2016 (ECF Nos. 92, 93), which the
8
Court then rescheduled sua sponte to November 8, 2016 (ECF No. 94); on November 3, 2016 the
9
Court reset the Case Management Conference from November 8, 2016 to June 15, 2017 (ECF Nos.
10
96, 97); on June 8, 2017 the Court reset the Case Management Conference from June 15, 2017 to
11
November 16, 2017 (ECF Nos. 99, 100, 101); and on November 9, 2017 the Court reset the Case
12
Management Conference from November 16, 2017 to March 1, 2018 (ECF Nos. 102, 103).
13
As of this time, the parties continue to believe that it is not appropriate to lift the Court’s stay.
14
Specifically, although the Arbitral Tribunal has issued its Final Award, the parties are in discussions
15
that potentially can resolve their dispute.
16
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Initial Case Management Conference,
17
currently scheduled for March 1, 2018, be continued until June 7, 2018, or any other date that the
18
Court deems appropriate. The parties will contact the Court before then if anything of substance
19
occurs in the arbitration that may affect the status of this case.
20
21
By his signature below, Counsel for Plaintiff certifies that Counsel for Defendants concur in
the filing of this notice.
22
23
24
25
26
Dated: February 21, 2018
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
/s/ Erik R. Puknys
Erik R. Puknys
Attorney for Plaintiff Cepheid
27
28
2
JOINT REQUEST TO C ONTINUE CMC
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
1
2
3
4
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
/s/ Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
Attorney for Defendant F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
5
HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
6
/s/ Stephen S. Rabinowitz
Stephen S. Rabinowitz
Attorney for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
JOINT REQUEST TO C ONTINUE CMC
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
1
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore;
3
the CMC is reset from 3/1/18 to 6/7/18 at 9:30 a.m.
4
statement shall be filed by 5/31/18.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S
RDERE
OO
IT IS S
9
dwa
Judge E
12
A
H
ER
LI
RT
11
hen
rd M. C
NO
10
R NIA
United States District Judge
D
FO
8
UNIT
ED
7
2/28/18
Dated: _________________________
RT
U
O
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
____________________________________
5
6
A joint CMC
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
2
JOINT REQUEST TO C ONTINUE CMC
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
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?