Fuzzysharp Technologies Incorporated v. Nvidia Corporation

Filing 48

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 47 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO RESCHEDULE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Nvidia Corporation. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 25, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985)
[e-mail]
DIANA M. RUTOWSKI (STATE BAR NO. 233878)
[e-mail]
JESSE CHENG (STATE BAR NO. 259909)
[e-mail]
JAMES FREEDMAN (STATE BAR NO. 287177)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA CORPORATION

DAVID FINK (pro hac vice)
7519 Apache Plume
Houston, TX 77071
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
[e-mail]
DUNCAN M. MCNEILL
1514 Van Dyke Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94124
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Fed. Bar No. 136416
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES
INC.

10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16

FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20

v.

Case No. 12-cv-6375-JST
STIPULATED REQUEST AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO
RESCHEDULE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

21
22
23

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Fuzzysharp Technologies Incorporated

24

(“Fuzzysharp”) and Defendant NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) respectfully submit this

25

Stipulated Request to reschedule the initial Case Management Conference set for December 18,

26

2013 to a later date, if necessary, pending the Court’s resolution of the parties’ dispute as to the

27

proper disposition of this case. Certain deadlines that trigger off of the initial Case Management

28

Conference as set forth in the Civil and Patent Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO RESCHEDULE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE 12-CV-6375-JST

1

will be continued accordingly. No other deadlines should be affected.

2

The only remaining claim against NVIDIA in this case alleges willful, direct infringement

3

of U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679 (”the ’679 patent”). In a recent November 7, 2013 Order in

4

Fuzzysharp Techs. Inc. v. Intel Corp, Case No. 12-CV-04413-YGR (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 22,

5

2012) (“Intel”), the Court invalidated all asserted claims of the ’679 patent. Intel Dkt. No. 74

6

(Order Construing Claim Terms in Dispute and Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of

7

Defendant Intel Corporation). Consequently, NVIDIA believes this case should be dismissed on

8

collateral estoppel grounds for the reasons to be set forth in its forthcoming brief. Fuzzysharp has

9

indicated that it intends to appeal the decision in Intel and instead favors a stay of this case

10

pending that appeal. The parties have met and conferred on this issue and failed to reach an

11

agreement. NVIDIA therefore intends to file a motion seeking dismissal of this case. Because

12

the parties believe that this case should be either stayed or dismissed, the parties agree that

13

rescheduling the Case Management Conference until after NVIDIA’s intended motion to dismiss

14

is heard and decided is in the best interest of the parties and judicial economy.

15

The initial Case Management Conference was originally scheduled for March 22, 2013

16

(Dkt. Nos. 3 and 10), vacated by the Court’s Reassignment Order (Dkt. No. 13), and reset for

17

March 26, 2013 (Dkt. No. 20). The Court has since rescheduled the Case Management

18

Conference for May 15, 2013, in response to the parties’ first stipulated request, and subsequently

19

for June 26, 2013, in response to an unopposed motion by Fuzzysharp (Dkt. Nos. 23, 27).

20

On June 5, 2013, the Court continued the Case Management Conference until August 14, 2013

21

(Dkt. No. 34). On July 30, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to reschedule the

22

Case Management Conference until after resolution of NVIDIA’s Motion to Dismiss

23

Fuzzysharp’s Amended Complaint, and rescheduled the Conference to October 23, 2013

24

(Dkt. Nos. 39-40). On September 30, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to

25

reschedule the Case Management Conference to December 18, 2013, due to scheduling conflicts

26

of NVIDIA’s lead counsel (Dkt. No. 46).

27

///

28
-2-

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO RESCHEDULE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE 12-CV-6375-JST

1

In light of the high probability that this case will either be dismissed or stayed as a result

2

of the ruling in Intel, the parties respectfully request that the initial Case Management Conference

3

be rescheduled to a later date if still necessary pending resolution of this dispute, subject to the

4

convenience of the Court.

5
6

Dated: November 22, 2013

7

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP

8

By:

9
10

/s/ James Freedman
James Freedman
Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA CORP

Dated: November 22, 2013

By:

/s/ David Fink
David Fink
Attorney for Plaintiff
FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES INC.

11
12
13

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for NVIDIA has obtained the concurrence
of Fuzzy sharp’s counsel in the filing of this Stipulated Request.

14
By:

15
16

/s/ James Freedman
JAMES FREEDMAN
Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA CORPORATION

17
18
19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

20
21

November 25, 2013
Dated: ___________________
Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO RESCHEDULE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE 12-CV-6375-JST