Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
82
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 81 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Request to Continue Case Management Conference filed by Cepheid Case Management Statement due by 11/6/2014. Case Management Conference set for 11/13/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/26/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014)
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
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 CONTINUE 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 patents 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 has appealed the Arbitral
18
Tribunal’s jurisdictional decision. Id.
19
20
21
In light of the circumstances, the parties do not believe it is appropriate to lift the Court’s stay
at this time. Cepheid will contact the Court if it believes that a lift of the stay is appropriate.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Initial Case Management Conference,
22
currently scheduled for March 3, 2014, be continued until November 10, 2014, or any other date that
23
the Court deems appropriate. The parties will contact the Court before then if anything of substance
24
occurs in the arbitration that may affect the status of this case.
25
26
By his signature below, Counsel for Plaintiff certifies that Counsel for Defendants concur in
the filing of this notice.
27
28
1
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
1
2
3
4
Dated: February 24, 2014
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
/s/ Erik R. Puknys
Erik R. Puknys
Attorney for Plaintiff Cepheid
5
6
7
8
9
10
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
/s/ Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
Attorney for Defendant F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
11
12
13
COOLEY LLP
/s/ Mark F. Lambert
Mark F. Lambert
14
Attorney for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC
7
S
Dated: _________________________
UNIT
ED
6
____________________________________
DERED
United O ORDistrict Judge
S States
IT IS
IFIED
S MOD
A
8
dward
Judge E
ER
n
M. Che
H
11
RT
10
NO
9
ICT
C
RT
U
O
5
ES
AT
T
R NIA
4
The 3/6/14 CMC is reset for 11/13/14 at 9:00 a.m. A joint CMC Statement shall
be filed by 11/6/14.
2/26/14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DISTR
FO
3
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore;
LI
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER
A
1
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE 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?