iMTX Strategic LLC v. Vimeo LLC

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING (62 in 4:15-cv-00597-JSW), (60 in 4:15-cv-00593-JSW), (60 in 4:15-cv-00592-JSW), (49 in 4:15-cv-00594-JSW), (65 in 4:15-cv-00598-JSW), (61 in 4:15-cv-00596-JSW), (69 in 4:15-cv-00599-JSW), and (58 in 4:15-cv-00595-JSW) STIPULATION to Continue Case Management Conference and Pre-Case Management Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 11, 2015. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

IMTX STRATEGIC LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
VIMEO LLC,
SPOTIFY USA INC.,
RHAPSODY, INC.
HOME BOX OFFICE, INC.
HULU, INC.
NETFLIX, INC.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND
VUDU INC.,

16

No. C 15-00592 JSW
No. C 15-00593 JSW
No. C 15-00594 JSW
No. C 15-00595 JSW
No. C 15-00596 JSW
No. C 15-00597 JSW
No. C 15-00598 JSW
No. C 15-00599 JSW
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
AND PRE-CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE ORDER

Defendants.
17
/
18
19

The Court has received the parties’ stipulations to continue the case management

20

conferences in these cases, and it finds GOOD CAUSE to grant those requests. Accordingly,

21

the Court VACATES the case management conferences set for June 12, 2015, and it shall reset

22

a case management conference if necessary in the Order resolving the motion to stay.

23

The Court HEREBY ADVISES the parties that if they are filing documents in multiple

24

cases that are identical, e.g., the joint case management conference statement and the motion to

25

stay, they need not submit multiple chambers copies. One chambers copy will suffice for the

26

Court’s purposes.

27
28

The Court also reminds the parties that, in general, the Court only permits one motion
for summary judgment, i.e. it does not permit serial motions for summary judgment or summary
adjudication of issues. Although I may consider it in this case, but the Court advises the parties

1

that it will not hear seven separate motions for summary judgment on one hearing date on either

2

issues of invalidity or infringement. Therefore, the parties shall be prepared to meet and confer

3

to discuss the order in which the issues should be presented.

4

Although the parties have submitted certifications of ADR procedures, that alone is not

5

sufficient. If the Court does not stay the case, the parties shall submit stipulations and proposed

6

orders regarding ADR procedures for those cases in which stipulations have not yet been

7

submitted.

the parties to continue to work together to figure out how best to streamline issues in this case.

10

With respect to claim construction, the Court will abide by paragraphs 3 and 4 of its Standing

11
For the Northern District of California

Finally, because these cases are related but have not been consolidated, the Court urges

9

United States District Court

8

Order for Patent cases, and it will be stringent about granting requests for construction of

12

additional terms. It expects the parties to meet and confer, either in person or by telephone or

13

video conference, to work together to limit the number of proposed claim terms. The Court will

14

NOT conduct seven Markman hearings.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2015
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2