Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 87

STIPULATION AND ORDER Case Management Statement due by 9/17/2015. Case Management Conference set for 9/24/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/13/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2015)

Download PDF
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 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 appealed the Arbitral Tribunal’s 18 jurisdictional decision. Id. 19 On February 24, 2014 the parties jointly requested a continuance of the Case Management 20 Conference. ECF No. 81. The Court granted the parties’ request and rescheduled the Case 21 Management Conference to November 13, 2014. ECF No. 82. 22 On February 28, 2014 the Swiss Federal Court dismissed Cepheid’s appeal in its entirety. 23 The Arbitration is proceeding in accordance with the schedule set by the Arbitral Tribunal, which 24 provides for an evidentiary hearing. 25 26 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. 27 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Initial Case Management Conference, 28 currently scheduled for March 26, 2015, be continued until September 24, 2015, or any other date 1 JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC 1 that the Court deems appropriate. The parties will contact the Court before then if anything of 2 substance occurs in the arbitration that may affect the status of this case. 3 4 By his signature below, Counsel for Plaintiff certifies that Counsel for Defendants concur in the filing of this notice. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dated: March 12, 2015 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP /s/ Erik R. Puknys Erik R. Puknys Attorney for Plaintiff Cepheid WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 13 /s/ Robert J. Gunther, Jr. Robert J. Gunther, Jr. Attorney for Defendant F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. 14 COOLEY LLP 15 /s/ Mark F. Lambert Mark F. Lambert Attorney for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. 12 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 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 RT 10 OO IT IS S DIFIED AS MO 12 . Chen ward M udge Ed J ER H 11 R NIA United States District ERED RD Judge NO 9 ____________________________________ UNIT ED 8 RT U O 7 Dated: _________________________ S 3/13/15 6 S DISTRICT TE C TA FO 4 The CMC is reset for 9/24/15 at 9:30 a.m. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by 9/17/15. LI 3 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore; A 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER 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 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?