Vir2us, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 128

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Amend Case Schedule. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 6/22/2017. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Henry C. Bunsow (SBN 60707)
[e-mail]
Brian A.E. Smith (SBN 188147)
[e-mail]
Alden K.W. Lee (SBN 257973)
[e-mail]
Joseph J. Fraresso (SBN 289228)
[e-mail]
BUNSOW, DE MORY, SMITH & ALLISON
LLP
351 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Christina M. Finn (SBN 247838)
[e-mail]
Jeffrey D. Chen (SBN 267837)
[e-mail]
BUNSOW, DE MORY, SMITH & ALLISON
LLP
701 El Camino Real
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
VIR2US, INC.

16

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

21
VIR2US, INC.,
Plaintiff,

23

25
26
27
28

Joseph A. Powers (pro hac vice)
Jarrad M. Gunther (pro hac vice)
Duane Morris LLP
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

24

L. Norwood Jameson (pro hac vice)
Matthew C. Gaudet (pro hac vice)
John R. Gibson (pro hac vice)
Jennifer H. Forte (pro hac vice)
Duane Morris LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2000
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3929
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, CISCO
SYSTEM, INC. AND SOURCEFIRE LLC

17

22

Richard L. Seabolt
California Bar No. 67469
Duane Morris LLP
Spear Tower
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105-11127
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and
SOURCEFIRE LLC,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-06988-VC
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE
SCHEDULE (DKT. 104)
AND ORDER

Plaintiff Vir2us, Inc. (“Vir2us”) and Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. and Sourcefire LLC

1
2

(“Defendants”), after consultation with the Court, hereby stipulate and agree that—with the

3

exception of Defendants’ supplemental response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4, Defendants’

4

agreed1 supplemental production and identification of documents required by Patent Local Rule

5

3-4(d), and the parties’ exchange of damages contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-8 and

6

3-9 (collectively, the “Initial Damages Discovery Items”)—all other damages-related discovery

7

shall be rescheduled to commence after the Court issues its claim construction and dispositive

8

motion ruling(s) (collectively, “Dispositive Rulings”). Defendants’ supplemental response to

9

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4 and agreed supplemental production of documents required by

10

Patent Local Rule 3-4(d) shall include (to the extent not already produced, but maintained in the

11

ordinary course of business) units sold, sales, revenue, cost, and profit information for each

12

Accused Product2 identified in Plaintiff’s Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) disclosure and shall cover the

13

time-period of 2010 to present.
The parties stipulate and agree that the following deadlines shall apply to the Initial

14
15

Damages Discovery Items:

16

Event

17

Defendants’ supplemental response to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4 and
Defendants’ agreed supplemental
production of documents required by Patent
Local Rule 3-4(d)

18
19

Deadline
June 21, 2017

20
21

1

24

Plaintiff contends there are deficiencies in Defendants’ existing production and
identification of documents required by Patent Local Rule 3-4(d). Defendants disagree. In an
effort to resolve the dispute, Defendants have agreed to make a supplemental document
production and identification of documents as part of its supplemental response to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 4, which Defendants hope will moot the dispute. The parties reserve all rights
regarding that dispute.

25

2

22
23

26
27
28

Defendants have objected to the definition of “Accused Products” set forth in Plaintiff’s
Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) disclosure. Plaintiff has neither agreed nor acquiesced to those
objections. Defendants will provide the categories of information described herein by June 21 in
accordance with their objections. If Plaintiff believes those objections are improper or result in
an improper narrowing or exclusion of products, then the parties shall confer after June 21, and
Plaintiff maintains the right to raise any such unresolved dispute with the Court immediately
following the meet-and-confer process.
-2-

Event

1
2
3
4

Deadline

Vir2us’s amended disclosure of damages
contentions (P.L.R. 3-8)

July 14, 2017

Defendants’ disclosure of responsive
damages contentions (P.L.R. 3-9)

August 4, 2017

5

The parties further stipulate and agree that following the issuance of the last of the

6

Court’s Dispositive Rulings related to claim construction and/or dispositive motions heard at the

7

currently scheduled March 7, 2018 hearing, fact discovery relating only to damages issues shall

8

recommence and last 60 days, to be followed by a 73-day period for expert discovery relating

9

only to damages issues and then a 14-day period to file any Daubert motions related to damages

10

issues. Accordingly, the following deadlines shall apply to the damages-related discovery

11

period:

12
13

Event
Damages-related fact discovery ends

60 days after the Court issues its final
Dispositive Ruling

Vir2us’s opening expert report on damages

10 days after damages-related fact discovery
ends

Defendants’ rebuttal expert report on
damages

28 days after Vir2us’s opening expert report on
damages

Vir2us’s reply expert report on damages

21 days after Defendants’ rebuttal expert report
on damages

Damages expert discovery ends

14 days after Vir2us’s reply expert report on
damages

Daubert motions on damages-related issues

14 days after close of damages expert
discovery

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Deadline

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

1
2

The foregoing has been stipulated and agreed to by and among the parties, this 20th day
of June, 2017.

3

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

L. Norwood Jameson (pro hac vice)
Matthew C. Gaudet (pro hac vice)
John R. Gibson (pro hac vice)
Jennifer H. Forte (pro hac vice)
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2000
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3929
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Christina M. Finn (SBN 247838)
[e-mail]
Jeffrey D. Chen (SBN 267837)
[e-mail]
BUNSOW, DE MORY, SMITH & ALLISON LLP
701 El Camino Real
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Joseph A. Powers (pro hac vice)
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF VIR2US,
INC.

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CISCO
SYSTEM, INC. AND SOURCEFIRE LLC

18
19

22
23

S

United States District Judge

RT

25

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

NO

24

RT
U
O

21

Date: June 22, 2017

UNIT
ED

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
SO ORDERED:
TA

inc
J u d ge V

ER

H

26
27
28
-4-

e Chha

R NIA

7

br ia

FO

6

/s/ Matthew C. Gaudet
Richard L. Seabolt
California Bar No. 67469
Duane Morris LLP
Spear Tower
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105-11127
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

LI

5

/s/ Brian A.E. Smith
Henry C. Bunsow (SBN 60707)
[e-mail]
Brian A.E. Smith (SBN 188147)
[e-mail]
Alden K.W. Lee (SBN 257973)
[e-mail]
Joseph J. Fraresso (SBN 289228)
[e-mail]
BUNSOW, DE MORY, SMITH & ALLISON LLP
351 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

A

4

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

1

ATTESTATION

2
3

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1, I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence of the

4

above noted signatories as indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.

5

Dated: June 20, 2017

6

/s/ Brian A.E. Smith
Brian A.E. Smith

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-