Twin Peaks Software Inc. v. IBM Corporation

Filing 34

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 33 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2 filed by IBM Corporation. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 18, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2015)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
2
3
4
5
6

Robert W. Stone (CA Bar No. 163513)
[e-mail]
Andrew J. Bramhall (CA Bar No. 253115)
[e-mail]
Brice C. Lynch (CA Bar No. 288567)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
T: 650.801.5000
F: 650.801.5100

7
Attorneys for IBM CORPORATION

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12 TWIN PEAKS SOFTWARE INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

15 IBM CORPORATION,
Hon. Jon S. Tigar

16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1
2

STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Twin Peaks Software Inc. (“Twin Peaks”) and

3 Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), by and through their respective
4 counsel of record hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an order modifying certain case
5 deadlines as set forth below. In support of this request, the parties state as follows:
6

WHEREAS, on January 7, 2015, the Court entered its scheduling order in this case, which

7 set deadlines through the claim construction hearing on December 8, 2015. (Dkt. No. 29.);
8

WHEREAS, pursuant to the scheduling order, Twin Peaks timely served its Patent Local

9 Rule 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on February 9, 2015;
10

WHEREAS, IBM believed Twin Peaks’ infringement contentions to be deficient, and sent

11 a letter on February 25, 2015 to Twin Peaks to that effect;
12

WHEREAS, on March 9, 2015, Twin Peaks responded in writing to IBM’s letter, served

13 an Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims, and produced additional documents to IBM pursuant
14 to Patent Local Rule 3-2;
15

WHEREAS, as a result of discussions between the parties regarding these matters, Twin

16 Peaks and IBM have agreed to jointly request that the Court briefly extend certain deadlines
17 imposed by the scheduling order, including the deadline for IBM to serve its Patent Local Rule 3-3
18 Invalidity Contentions;
19

WHEREAS, this is the first time the parties have sought to make any modifications to the

20 Court’s scheduling order;
21

WHEREAS, prior to this motion, IBM and Twin Peaks have made only one request to

22 extend a deadline in this case. (Dkt. No. 10.);
23

WHEREAS, the parties’ proposed extensions do not affect the dates of the technology

24 tutorial and claim construction hearing, nor do they reduce the time available to the Court to
25 review materials between the conclusion of claim construction briefing and the claim construction
26 hearing. The proposed modifications also do not affect any deadlines for filing or lodging
27 materials with the Court;
28
-1-

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1

WHEREAS, the parties do not believe the extension sought hereby will prejudice either

2 party or result in undue delay;
3

WHEREAS, counsel for IBM, Andrew J. Bramhall, has submitted a supporting declaration

4 with this stipulation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a);
5

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the forgoing, IBM and Twin Peaks by and

6 through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and request that the Court modify the
7 scheduling order as set forth in the following table:
8

Scheduling Order

Proposed Schedule

Defendant’s invalidity contentions and
accompanying document production

4/6/15

5/6/2015

Exchange of proposed terms for
construction

4/29/15

5/22/2015

12

Exchange of preliminary claim
constructions and extrinsic evidence

6/10/15

6/19/2015

13

Joint claim construction and prehearing
statement

7/15/15

No Change

14

Claim construction discovery cut-off

8/14/15

No Change

15

Claim construction opening brief

9/30/15

No Change

16

Claim construction responsive brief

10/21/15

No Change

Claim construction reply brief

10/30/15

No Change

Tutorial

11/17/15 2:00 p.m.

No Change

Claim construction hearing

12/8/15 1:30 p.m.

No Change

9
10
11

17
18

Event

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
2

DATED: March 18, 2015

3

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

4
By /s/ Andrew J. Bramhall
Andrew J. Bramhall
Attorney for Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

DATED: March 18, 2015

HAUSFELD LLP

By /s/ Bruce J. Wecker
Bruce J. Wecker
Attorneys for Plaintiff Twin Peaks Software Inc..

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1
2
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court modifies the Scheduling Order as follows:
Event

New Deadline

4

Defendant’s invalidity contentions and
accompanying document production

5/6/2015

5

5/22/2015

6

Exchange of proposed terms for
construction

7

Exchange of preliminary claim
constructions and extrinsic evidence

6/19/2015

8 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
9

18

R NIA

FO

i ga r

LI

ER

H

17

RT

16

n S. T
u d ge J o
J

NO

15

ED

RDER
By
S SO O
IT I
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A

14

UNIT
ED

13

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
T
TA

RT
U
O

11 DATED: __________________ 2015
March 18
12

S

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

FILER’S ATTESTATION

1
2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i) regarding signatures, I, Andrew J. Bramhall, attest that

3 concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I
4 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing
5 is true and correct.
6
7
8 DATED: March 18, 2015
9
10

By /s/ Andrew J. Bramhall
Andrew J. Bramhall
Attorney for Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2