In re Ricoh Company Ltd. Patent Litigation

Filing 559

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Tutorial Hearing set for 12/5/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. Plaintiff's Motion of Non-Infringement. Hearing set for 1/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose..Plaintif f SHALL notice this MOTION in accordance with the Civil Local Rules of the Court. Once the briefing is closed, the moving party SHALL compile a three ring binder (to be lodged with the Court) containing the motion and any supporting documents. The Court REFERS the parties to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all discovery disputes. Signed by Judge James Ware on 10/2/2008. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2008) Modified text on 10/9/2008 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION In Re Ricoh Company, Ltd. Patent Litigation, NO. C 03-02289 JW ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE / On September 15, 2008, the Court conducted a case management conference. Counsel for the respective parties were present. Based on the discussion at the conference, the Court orders as follows: (1) On December 5, 2008 at 9 a.m., parties shall appear before the Court to present a

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

tutorial of the patent-in-suit. The purpose of the tutorial is to allow each party to inform the Court about the background of the technical information which is involved in the case and the nature of the dispute. Presentations may include demonstrations, expert testimony, or audio visual materials. No cross-examination will be permitted. However, the Court may pose questions to parties or witnesses. No record will be made of the proceedings. Statements made during the tutorial may not be cited as judicial admissions against a party. (2) On January 23, 2009 at 9 a.m., the Court will conduct a hearing on Plaintiff's

anticipated Motion of Non-Infringement. Plaintiff shall notice this motion in accordance with the Civil Local Rules of the Court. Once the briefing is closed, the moving party shall compile a three ring binder (to be lodged with the Court) containing (a) the motion and any supporting memorandum of law; (b) the opposition memorandum; (c) any reply memorandum; and (d) any exhibits in support or opposition to the motion, which shall be clearly labeled. At the beginning of each binder the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

moving party shall include, as appropriate, Chart A as described below; each statement shall be supported by appropriate citations to the motion papers and or exhibits. Chart A - Summary of Infringement/Non-Infringement Issues
Patent Claim/Elements Stipulated Construction/Court Construction Accused Product Defense Asserted

`000 Patent, Claim 1 an apparatus comprising 1. a handle apparatus means: "a device which. . ." "handle" means a part held by the human hand Riverside Model 2 Riverside Model 2 the product lacks a handle

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

(3)

Electronic Storage of Exhibits: The Court has available a digital and video electronic

evidence presentation system. The parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with the system, and to meet and confer about whether the case will involve voluminous documentation. If so, as the parties identify documentary material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the parties are ordered to electronically store these materials in a fashion which will facilitate displaying them electronically during the trial. The parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 30-2(b) requires sequential numbering of exhibits during depositions and that numbering must be maintained for those exhibits throughout the litigation. Each proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for identification. All exhibits shall be marked with numerals. The parties shall meet and confer on a division which will avoid duplication (e.g., Plaintiff: 1-99,000; Defendant #1: 100,000-299,999; Defendant #2: 300,000500,000). (4) disputes. Dated: October 2, 2008 The Court refers the parties to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all discovery

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Brian A. E. Smith [e-mail] Christopher L. Kelley [e-mail] DeAnna Dahlyce Allen [e-mail] Denise M. De Mory [e-mail] Eric Oliver [e-mail] Erik Keith Moller [e-mail] Ethan B. Andelman [e-mail] Gary M. Hoffman [e-mail] Henry C. Su [e-mail] Jaclyn C. Fink [e-mail] Jeffrey B. Demain [e-mail] Jonathan David Weissglass [e-mail] Kenneth W. Brothers [e-mail] Matthew Greinert [e-mail] Matthew E. Hocker [e-mail] Michael A. Weinstein [e-mail] Teresa M. Corbin [e-mail] Thomas C. Mavrakakis [e-mail]

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: October 2, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy