The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, Inc et al

Filing 280

DOCUMENT RECEIVED UNDER SEAL (bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al Doc. 280

e. robert (bob) wallach (SBN 29078) Lawyer-Counselor Law Offices of e. robert (bob) wallach, P.C. P. O. Box 2670 San Francisco, CA 94126-2670 155 Jackson Street, No. 602 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Alan L. Barry Noelle J. Quinn Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60610 [phone] (Pro hac vice) Gregory S. Cavallo (SBN 173270) Shopoff & Cavallo LLP 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1040 San Francisco, CA 94111 [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sharper Image Corporation and Zenion Industries, Inc.

E. Joseph Dean Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 (Pro hac vice) Marc T. Rasich (SBN 174683) Stoel Rives LLP 201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 801-578-6999 Christopher J. Carr (SBN 184076) Stoel Rives LLP 111 Sutter Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-676-3000 Attorneys for Defendant Indoor Purification Systems, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and ZENION INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. NEOTEC, INC., a Nevada corporation, and INDOOR PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Utah corporation, Defendants.

Case No. 03-4426 CW STIPULATED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

28

591792/D/1 4/15/2004 7:18 PM
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to the Court's Order dated April 1, 2004, Sharper Image Corporation and Zenion Industries, Inc. (collectively "Sharper Image") and Indoor Purification Systems, Inc. ("IPS") hereby submit the following Stipulated Case Management Order. The parties are in agreement as to the following Patent Local Rules Deadlines: Patent Local Rules Deadlines: Preliminary Infringement Contentions Preliminary Invalidity Contentions Exchange Proposed Disputed Claim Terms Exchange Proposed Claim Constructions Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Claim Construction Discovery Closes Sharper Image's Claim Construction Brief Defendants' Response Claim Construction Brief Sharper Image Reply Brief Claim Construction Hearing Final Infringement Contentions Final Invalidity Contentions Discovery Deadlines: Because they cannot agree as to appropriate discovery deadlines, Sharper Image and IPS are presenting separate proposals: Sharper Image's Proposal: In March 2004, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement with proposed discovery deadlines. Since that time, Sharper Image has filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint. Sharper Image's proposed Amended Complaint includes one additional party and three additional patents (none of which were in suit at the time of the JCMS's filing). In addition, since that time, the Court has related this case to two other patent infringement lawsuits pending in this Court. In light of the foregoing, Sharper Image believes the proposed schedule previously presented in the parties Joint Case Management Statement ("JCMS") is impractical and April 16, 2004 June 1, 2004 June 15, 2004 July 6, 2004 August 2, 2004 September 1, 2004 September 16, 2004 September 30, 2004 October 7, 2004 October 22, 2004 15 days post Claim Construction Ruling 30 days post Claim Construction Ruling

591792/D/1 4/15/2004 7:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

unmanageable. For example, Sharper Image cannot agree to a fact discovery deadline that coincides with either of the other related cases (wherein the fact discovery period is closing in January and February 2005). Further, the schedule presented in the previously submitted JCMS does not allow for enough time in between the dispositive motion deadline and the final pretrial conference. Moreover, because of the highly seasonal nature of Sharper Image's business, it is extremely burdensome for Sharper Image to schedule a trial during the retail holiday shopping season (October through December). Accordingly, Sharper Image propose the following amended schedule: Deadline for serving Rule 26(a) Disclosures Fact Discovery Closes Expert Witness Reports Rebuttal Expert Reports Completion of Expert Discovery Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline Final Pretrial Conference Trial Begins IPS's Proposal: Defendant Indoor Purification Systems believes that the dates the parties stipulated to just four weeks ago in the Joint Case Management Statement filed on March 19, 2004 should be used. Plaintiffs joined in that stipulation with full knowledge that they were going to seek to amend the complaint (plaintiffs so stated in the Joint Case Management Statement ­ see ¶ 8 on p. 4), so the amendment that the plaintiffs have recently sought leave to make does not constitute changed circumstances, does not relieve plaintiffs from the stipulation they made, and does not justify stretching this case out nine additional months. Further, two patents Sharper Image is "adding" were already being asserted in this very case against co-defendant Neotec, Inc., so those patents do not justify a 9-month extension of this case. Lastly, Sharper Image's desire to have its cases not come to trial "during the retail holiday season" does not justify moving the trial date it agreed to from May April 23, 2004 April 29, 2005 May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 August 5, 2005 September 23, 2005 February 17, 2006 February 27, 2006

591792/D/1 4/15/2004 7:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2005 to February 2006. The dates Sharper Image stipulated to, which will lead to the much more prompt disposition of this case, were as follows: Deadline for serving Rule 26(a) Disclosures Fact Discovery Closes Expert Witness Reports Rebuttal Expert Reports Completion of Expert Discovery Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline Final Pretrial Conference Trial Begins April 23, 2004 60 days after Claim Construction Order 90 days after Claim Construction Order 120 days after Claim Construction Order 150 days after Claim Construction Order February 11, 2005 May 9, 2005 May 23, 2005

591792/D/1 4/15/2004 7:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 *Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X, by signing above counsel for Plaintiff hereby attests it maintains a file copy of this stipulation bearing Defendant's counsel's signature. Attorneys for Plaintiff Sharper Image Corporation and Zenion Industries, Inc. /s/ _____________________________ /s/ Noelle J. Quinn (electronically filed)* e. robert (bob) wallach (SBN 29078) Lawyer-Counselor Law Offices of e. robert (bob) wallach, P.C. Alan L. Barry Amy G. O'Toole Noelle J. Quinn Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC (pro hac vice) Jeffrey W. Shopoff (SBN 46278) Gregory S. Cavallo (SBN 173270) Shopoff & Cavallo LLP E. Joseph Dean Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 (Pro hac vice) Marc T. Rasich (SBN 174683) Stoel Rives LLP 201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 801-578-6999 Christopher J. Carr (SBN 184076) Stoel Rives LLP 111 Sutter Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-676-3000 Attorneys for Defendant Indoor Purification Systems, Inc. Dated: April 15, 2004 SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION and ZENION INDUSTRIES, INC. Dated: April 15, 2004 INDOOR PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

591792/D/1 4/15/2004 7:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and ZENION INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs,

Case No. 03-4426 CW [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

NEOTEC, INC., a Nevada corporation, and INDOOR PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Utah corporation, Defendants. This matter came to be heard on the parties stipulated and separate proposed Case Management Orders. The Court has considered the parties' proposals, and PURSUANT TO

STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall adhere to the following Patent Local Rules schedule: Preliminary Infringement Contentions Preliminary Invalidity Contentions Exchange Proposed Disputed Claim Terms Exchange Proposed Claim Constructions Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Claim Construction Discovery Closes Sharper Image's Claim Construction Brief Defendants' Response Claim Construction Brief Sharper Image Reply Brief Claim Construction Hearing Final Infringement Contentions Final Invalidity Contentions April 16, 2004 June 1, 2004 June 15, 2004 July 6, 2004 August 2, 2004 September 1, 2004 September 16, 2004 September 30, 2004 October 7, 2004 October 22, 2004 15 days post Claim Construction Ruling 30 days post Claim Construction Ruling

591792/D/1 4/15/2004 7:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

As to the parties' different proposals respecting discovery deadlines and an appropriate trial date IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties shall adhere to the following schedule: Deadline for serving Rule 26(a) Disclosures Fact Discovery Closes Expert Witness Reports Rebuttal Expert Reports Completion of Expert Discovery Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline Final Pretrial Conference Trial Begins April 23, 2004 __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________

Dated:_______________________

__________________________________ U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken

591792/D/1 4/15/2004 7:18 PM