GeoTag, Inc. v. Zoosk, Inc.

Filing 216

STIPULATION AND ORDER Case Management Statement due by 10/2/2014. Further Case Management Conference reset for 10/9/2014 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/29/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MOUNTAIN VIEW

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

11

13
14
15
16
17

STEPHEN F. MALOUF (PRO HAC VICE)
[e-mail]
JEREMY MARTIN (PRO HAC VICE)
[e-mail]
JONATHAN NOCKELS (PRO HAC VICE)
[e-mail]
MALOUF & NOCKELS LLP
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75219
214-969-7373 (Telephone)
214-969-7648 (Facsimile)
JEFFREY A. TINKER (PRO HAC VICE)
[e-mail]
Winstead PC
500 Winstead Building
2728 N. Harwood Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
JOSEPH A. GRECO (Cal. Bar No. 104476)
[e-mail]
KIMBERLY P. ZAPATA (Cal. Bar No. 138291)
[e-mail]
Beck, Bismonte & Finley, LLP
150 Almaden Boulevard, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 408.938.0790

CHARLENE M. MORROW (CSB No.
136411)
[e-mail]
PATRICK E. PREMO (CSB No. 184915)
[e-mail]
HECTOR J. RIBERA (CSB No. 221511)
[e-mail]
KATHLEEN LU (CSB No. 267032)
[e-mail]
BRIAN E. LAHTI (CSB No. 278951)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Telephone:
650.988.8500
Facsimile:
650.938.5200
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant
ZOOSK, INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant GEOTAG, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20
21
22
23
24
25

GEOTAG, INC.,

Case No.: 13-cv-00217-EMC
Plaintiff,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
STAY OF CASE

Defendant.

Current CMC Date: August 14, 2014

v.
ZOOSK, INC.,

26

______________________

27

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

Requested CMC Date: October 9, 2014

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE CMC AND STAY

CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC

1

This case is presently scheduled for a Case Management Conference on Thursday, August

2

14, 2014 at 10:30 A.M. The Joint Case Management Conference Statement is due on August 7,

3

2014. The parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Case Management Conference

4

until Thursday, October 9, 2014 at 10:30 A.M., or to a date convenient to the Court thereafter

5

(other than during the period of October 11, 2014 through November 1, 2014 when defendant’s

6

counsel is unavailable), and continue the stay of the case, for the following reasons:

7

1.

At the last Case Management Conference on February 27, 2014, the Court ordered

Google in the District of Delaware (Microsoft Corporation et al. v. GeoTag, Inc., Civil Action

11

No. 11-00175-RGA), which involves the same GeoTag patent as is involved in this case, and

12
MOUNTAIN VIEW

Conference, so that the Court and the parties could know the outcome of GeoTag’s case against

10

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

that the case would be stayed at least until a May 29, 2014 continued Case Management

9

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

8

which was scheduled to go to trial in April 2014.

13

2.

In April 2014, the District of Delaware issued an order denying Google’s motions

14

for summary judgment of laches and invalidity and granting Google’s motion for

15

noninfringement. The public version of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is Docket No. 477,

16

filed April 22, 2014.

17

3.

The Delaware court, however, asked the parties in that case to address whether, in

18

light of the recent Federal Circuit case of Microsoft v. Datatern, No. 2013-1184, 2014 WL

19

1327923 (Fed. Cir. April 4, 2014), the Delaware court had subject matter jurisdiction.

20

Consequently, the parties to this action requested, and the Court granted, a continuance of the

21

Case Management Conference until July 31, 2014, and an extension of the stay. See Dkt. No.

22

213. The Clerk subsequently continued the Case Management Conference until August 14, 2014.

23

See Dkt. No. 214.

24

4.

The Delaware court has not, however, resolved the subject matter jurisdiction issue

25

with Google. After an initial round of briefing on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the

26

Delaware court allowed Google to file an amended complaint and requested additional briefing.

27

Attached as Exhibit 1 is Dkt. No. 495 from the Delaware case showing the parties’ stipulated

28

request for a continued briefing schedule concerning subject matter jurisdiction in relation to
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE CMC AND STAY

2

CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC

1

Google’s amended complaint (the Delaware court entered the stipulation by way of its minute

2

order of July 1, 2014, which does not have a docket entry). As Exhibit 1 shows, briefing will not

3

be completed until August 18, 2014.

4

5.

The parties to this action continue to believe that judicial economy, as well as the

5

economy of the parties, is served by allowing the parties and the Court to know the outcome of

6

the Google case before proceeding with this case. Accordingly, the parties hereby respectfully

7

request that the Court continue the Case Management Conference currently scheduled to take

8

place on August 14, 2014 at 10:30 A.M. until Thursday, October 9, 2014 at 10:30 A.M. in the

9

Courtroom of the Honorable Edward M. Chen, Courtroom 5 - 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate

MOUNTAIN VIEW

period of October 11 through November 1, 2014 as per above), and to continue the stay of this

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or to a date convenient to the Court thereafter (excluding the

11
F ENWICK & W EST LLP

10

case until that continued Case Management Conference.

13
14

SO STIPULATED.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE CMC AND STAY

3

CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC

1

Dated: July 28, 2014

BECK, BISMONTE & FINLEY, LLP

2
3

By: /s/ Joseph A. Greco
Joseph A. Greco
Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant
GeoTag, Inc.

4
5
6
7

FENWICK & WEST LLP

8
9

By: /s/ Brian E. Lahti
Brian E. Lahti
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant
Zoosk, Inc.

10

13
14
15
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

21

RT

23

rd M. C

NO

22

O ORD D
IT IS S
DIFIE
AS MO
dwa
Judge E

ER

25

hen

A

H

24

R NIA

20

The Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge
ERED

FO

19

RT
U
O

7/29/14
Dated: __________________

S

18

The Further CMC is
reset for 10/9/14 at
ISTRIC
10:30 a.m. An updated joint
SD
TC
TE
statement is
TA
_____________________________due 10/2/14.

LI

16

UNIT
ED

MOUNTAIN VIEW

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

11

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE CMC AND STAY

4

CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC

1
2
3

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that the concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories.

4
5

Dated: July 28, 2014

FENWICK & WEST LLP

6
By: /s/ Brian E. Lahti
Brian E. Lahti
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant
Zoosk, Inc.

7
8
9
10

MOUNTAIN VIEW

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

11

13
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 28, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such
filing to all counsel who have entered an appearance in this action.
Dated: July 28, 2014

FENWICK & WEST LLP

15
By: /s/ Brian E. Lahti
Brian E. Lahti
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant
Zoosk, Inc.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE CMC AND STAY

5

CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC