Helio LLC v. Palm, Inc.

Filing 55

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Helio LLC. (Davis, Harold) (Filed on 3/19/2007)

Helio LLC v. Palm, Inc.

Doc. 5

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) 2 Brian Cannon (Bar No. 193071) Doug Colt (Bar No. 210915) 3 Andrea Pallios Roberts (Bar No. 228128) [e-mail] 4 [e-mail] [e-mail] 5 [e-mail] 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 6 Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 8 Attorneys for Defendant Palm, Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 HELIO LLC 15 16 vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION CASE NO. C 06 7754 SBA __________________________ JOINT CASEMENT MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

17 PALM, INC. 18 19 20 Pursuant to Local Rule 16-9, the parties to the above entitled action jointly submit this Defendant.

21 Case Management Statement and Proposed Order, which the parties respectfully request that the 22 Court adopt. 23 24 1. Jurisdiction and Service

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because this is an action for trademark

25 infringement and unfair competition arising under the laws of the United States. The Court has 26 supplemental jurisdiction over the state and common law claims of trademark infringement and 27 unfair competition. No issues exist as to personal jurisdiction or venue and all parties have been 28 served.
51175/2080054.1

-1-

Case No. C 06 7754 SBA JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3

2.

Facts a. Chronology

On December 19, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair

4 competition. On December 21, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion for a 5 temporary restraining order, which was denied. A hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary 6 injunction has been set for April 10, 2007. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4. · · · · 3. · · · · b. Factual Issues in Dispute

Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Helio's DON'T CALL IT A PHONE marks and Palm's use of the slogan "Not Just A Cell Phone. A Treo." Whether Palm's "Not Just a Cell Phone. A Treo." slogan infringes Helio's marks; Whether and to what extent Helio has suffered damages as a result of any alleged trademark infringement Legal Issues Whether the phrases "Don't call it a phone" and "Don't call us a phone company are generic; Whether Helio's "Don't call it a phone" and "Don't call us a phone company" marks have secondary meaning; Whether legal damages are an adequate remedy for the alleged harm; Whether there is irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; Whether Palm should be preliminarily and/or permanently enjoined from using the slogan "Not Just a Cell Phone" in advertisements Motions

There are two motions currently pending. On March 9, 2007, Palm filed an emergency

24 motion for an expedited briefing and hearing schedule, and motion to compel deposition and for 25 sanctions. The deposition at issue is the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Helio. Palm requested an 26 extension on the briefing schedule for Helio's motion for a preliminary injunction so that the 27 requested deposition can be completed before Palm's opposition papers are due. The case has 28 been referred to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for resolution of discovery disputes. To
51175/2080054.1

-2-

Case No. C 06 7754 SBA JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1 date, the Court has not set an expedited briefing schedule or hearing date and Helio has not filed a 2 response to Palm's motions. 3 Also pending is Helio's motion for a preliminary injunction, filed March 6, 2007. Pursuant

4 to the briefing schedule set by the Court, Palm's opposition is currently due on March 20, 2007 5 and Helio's reply papers are due on March 27, 2007. The hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2007 6 at 1:00 p.m. 7 8 9 10 5. Amendment of Pleadings

The parties do not anticipate adding parties, claims, or defenses. 6. Evidence Preservation

The parties have instructed their employees and the advertising agencies that developed

11 and implemented the campaigns at issue to preserve evidence relevant to the issues in this action. 12 13 14 15 7. Disclosures

The parties have not yet exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. 8. Discovery

To date, the parties have engaged in limited, expedited discovery in advance of the

16 preliminary injunction hearing. Pursuant to the Court's January 8, 2007 order, the parties each 17 propounded requests for production of documents and responsive documents have been produced. 18 The parties each conducted third party discovery, subpoenaing documents from the advertising 19 agencies that developed and implemented the campaigns at issue. The Court ordered that each 20 side be permitted to take two depositions during expedited discovery. Helio deposed Palm 21 employee Scott Hancock and AKQA, the advertising agency that developed Palm's campaign. 22 Palm only noticed one deposition, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Helio. This deposition is the 23 subject of motion practice, as discussed above. 24 Only a limited amount of discovery remains after the preliminary injunction hearing. Palm

25 needs to complete the deposition of Jessica Weeks, Helio's Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Palm will 26 likely need to take an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the topic of damages. Palm will 27 further seek to depose Deutsch, the advertising agency that developed Helio's campaign. Expert 28 discovery and depositions will also be necessary.
51175/2080054.1

-3-

Case No. C 06 7754 SBA JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1 2 3 4

9.

Class Actions

This case is not a class action. 10. Related Cases

The parties are not aware of any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge

5 of this court or any other court. 6 7 11. Relief

Helio seeks legal and equitable relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,

8 interests and costs, attorneys' fees and enhanced damages, and a preliminary and permanent 9 injunction. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
51175/2080054.1

12.

Settlement and ADR

The parties are actively pursuing settlement. 13. Consent to Magistrate Judge

The parties do not consent to having a magistrate judge conduct trial in this matter. 14. Other References:

No other references are applicable in this case. 15. Narrowing of Issues

The issues in this action are narrow, thus any further narrowing is unnecessary. 16. Expedited Schedule

This case can be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures. 17. a. b. Scheduling Designation of Experts: Discovery cutoff: September 7, 2007 August 31, 2007 (fact discovery) October 5, 2007 (expert discovery) c. d. e. Hearing of Dispositive Motions: Pretrial conference: Trial: November 16, 2007 December 6, 2007 December 10, 2007

-4-

Case No. C 06 7754 SBA JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1 2 3 4

18.

Trial

This case will be tried to jury. The expected length of trial is 6-10 trial days. 19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons

Plaintiff filed a "Certification of Interested Entities of Persons" with its complaint.

5 Plaintiff identified SK Telecom Co., Ltd. and Earthlink, Inc. as entities having either (i) a financial 6 interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or (ii) any other kind of 7 interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Defendant has not 8 yet filed a "Certification of Interested Entities or Persons." 9 10 11 DATED: March 19, 2007 12 13 14 15 16 DATED: March 19, 2007 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
51175/2080054.1

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP

By /s/ Claude Stern Claude Stern Attorneys for Defendant Palm, Inc. K&L GATES, LLP

By /s/ Kevin Trock Kevin Trock Attorneys for Plaintiff, Helio LLC.

-5-

Case No. C 06 7754 SBA JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT