Lenovo (Singapore) PTE, Ltd. v. Shuttle, Inc. et al

Filing 89

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING STAY PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS re 88 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/28/11. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2011)

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

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP REGINALD D. STEER (SBN 056342) [e-mail] AMIT KURLEKAR (SBN 244230) [e-mail] 580 California Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1036 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] FRED I. WILLIAMS (Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] ERIC J. KLEIN (Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] 1700 Pacific Ave., 41st Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP ROBERT B. MORRILL (SBN 035488) [e-mail] PETER H. KANG (SBN 158101) [e-mail] AARON R. BLEHARSKI (SBN 240703) [e-mail] 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] PHILIP. W. WOO (SBN 196459) [e-mail] 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants SHUTTLE, INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., Plaintiff, vs. SHUTTLE, INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP, INC., Defendants. -----------------JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel Case No. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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

Plaintiff Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Shuttle Inc. and Shuttle Computer Group Inc. (together "Defendants") respectfully request that the Court enter an order staying this case until March 28, 2011 pending the outcome of settlement discussions. In support of this Stipulation, the parties state as follows: I. 1. Reasons for Requested Stay On or about November 22, 2010, representatives for both parties met in Taiwan to

discuss a possible settlement of the pending litigation. During those discussions, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to a four week standstill in the lawsuit while settlement discussions continue. At that time, the parties also agreed and requested that the Court stay all case deadlines, both Court imposed and discovery related, during this four week period. In the event that a settlement could not be reached, the parties requested that the Court extend the case deadlines set forth in the Joint Stipulated Case Management Order entered by the Court on September 2, 2010 by four weeks. The Court signed an Order granting the stay on November 30, 2010. 2. However, due to the holiday season, the parties were unable to complete settlement

discussions during the four week period. Moreover, given the holiday season, the four week adjustment of the case schedule did not provide ample time to satisfy approaching deadlines. For example, pursuant to the Court's November 30, 2010 Order, the deadline for claim construction discovery was shifted from December 23, 2010 to January 20, 2011. Even under the adjusted timeline, the parties' ability to conduct claim construction discovery would be hindered given the logistics of scheduling and conducting depositions over the holidays, in addition to the parties' continuing efforts to collect responsive documents. Therefore, on December 21, 2010 the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Modify Case Management Order Pursuant to L.R. 6-2 requesting an additional four week extension of all remaining deadlines established by September 2, 2010 Order and modified by the November 30, 2010 Order. 3. After requesting an extension on December 21, 2010, the parties reached an

agreement regarding a standstill in the lawsuit through February 24, 2011 while settlement discussions continued. The parties agreed and requested that the Court stay all case deadlines, both Court imposed and discovery related, until February 24, 2011. The parties requested the standstill
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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

through February 24, 2011 in order to accommodate the upcoming holidays, including the Chinese New Year. On January 5, 2011, the Court granted the parties Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Stay Pending Settlement Discussions staying all case deadlines, both Court imposed and discovery related, until February 24, 2011. 4. During this standstill, the parties have made significant progress in reaching a

settlement in this litigation. However, while significant strides have been made, the parties have been unable to come to a complete settlement agreement at this time. The parties wish to continue settlement discussions in hopes of reaching an agreement in the very near future. To that end, the parties hereby request an additional 30 days that the parties believe will be sufficient to finalize the written agreement. In the event that the parties cannot reach a settlement, the parties request that the Court extend the current case deadlines set forth in the Joint Stipulated Case Management Order entered by the Court on September 2, 2010, modified by the Court's November 30, 2010 Order and extended pursuant to the Court's January 5, 2011 Order as set forth in section III below II. 4. Previous Time Modifications On July 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Complaint (see Dkt. No. 1). On the same day,

the Court set a Case Management Conference ("CMC") for Oct. 27, 2008 (see Dkt. No. 3). 5. On Aug. 18. 2008, this case was reassigned to Judge Fogel (see Dkt. No. 11). The

CMC scheduled for Oct. 27, 2008 was vacated. 6. On Sept. 26, 2008, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order enlarging

Defendants' time to reply to Plaintiff's Complaint to Dec. 1, 2008 (see Dkt. No. 17). Judge Fogel granted this request on Oct. 6, 2008 (see Dkt. No. 20). 7. On Sep. 30, 2008, before the extension was granted by Judge Fogel, the Court noticed

the CMC for Oct. 31, 2008 (see Dkt. No. 19). 8. On Oct. 21, 2008, the parties field a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend CMC

and ADR Deadlines (see Dkt. No. 22). Judge Fogel granted this request on Oct. 22, 2008, setting the CMC for Dec. 5, 2008 (see Dkt. No. 23).

2
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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 48).

9.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the parties filed a Second Stipulation and Proposed Order to

Extend the CMC and ADR Deadlines (see Dkt. No. 28). Judge Fogel granted this request on Nov. 17, 2008, setting the CMC for Dec. 19, 2008 (see Dkt. No. 30). 10. On Dec. 19, 2008, the Court set a further CMC for Mar. 20, 2009 (see Dkt. No. 38).

On Mar. 13, 2009, the Court continued the CMC to Mar. 23, 2009 (see Dkt. No. 41). 11. On Mar. 20, 2009, the parties filed a Stipulation to Stay Pending Reexamination of

the Patents-In-Suit (see Dkt. No. 42). Judge Fogel granted this request on Mar. 23, 2009 CMC, setting a Status Conference for Sep. 25, 2009 (see Dkt. No. 44). The Order granting the Stay was filed on Mar. 24, 2009 (see Dkt. No. 43). 12. On Sep. 25, 2009, Judge Fogel continued the Stay, setting a Status Conference for

Mar. 26, 2010 (see Dkt. No. 45). 13. On Mar. 26, 2010, Judge Fogel set a Status Conference for May 7, 2010 (see Dkt. No.

14.

On Apr. 30, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement setting forth a

proposed case schedule (see Dkt. No. 52). 15. On May 7, 2010, Judge Fogel lifted the Stay and adopted the proposed case schedule

filed by the parties on Apr. 30, 2010 (see Dkt. No. 53). 16. On Jun. 24, 2010, Plaintiff Lenovo, filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time requesting that the deadlines adopted by the Court in its May 7, 2010 Order be extended by seven days (see Dkt. No. 56). Judge Fogel granted this request on July 27, 2010, setting the Claim Construction Hearing for Feb. 22, 2010 (see Dkt. No. 58). 17. On Aug. 12, 2010, Defendant Shuttle, filed a Motion to Enlarge Time and To Modify

the Case Schedule (see Dkt. No. 59). Judge Fogel granted this request on Aug. 18, 2010, and ordered the parties to submit a Proposed Stipulated Case Management Order with a revised case schedule by Aug. 31, 2010 (see Dkt. No. 64). 18. On Aug. 31, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Proposed Stipulated Case Management

Order (see Dkt. No. 65), which Judge Fogel granted on Sep. 2, 2010 (see Dkt. No. 67).

3
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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

19.

On Nov. 19, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to

Continue the Hearing date on Defendant Shuttle's Motion to Strike Plaintiff Lenovo's Infringement Contentions (see Dkt. No. 79). Magistrate Judge Patricia Trumbull, granted this request, setting the hearing Joint Stipulation for Dec. 14, 2010 (see Dkt. No. 80). 20. On Nov. 23, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to

Enlarge Time to File the parties' Patent L.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Civil L.R. 6-2) (see Dkt. No. 81). On Nov. 23, 2010, the Court granted the parties' request (see Dkt. No. 82). 21. On Nov. 24, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

Regarding Stay Pending Settlement Discussions (see Dkt. No. 83). On Nov. 30, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting the stay (see Dkt. No. 84). 22. On December 21, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to

Modify Case Management Order Pursuant to L.R. 6-2 (see Dkt. No. 85). 23. On January 3, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

Regarding Stay Pending Settlement Discussions (see Dkt. No. 86). On Jan. 5, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting the stay and extending all case deadlines (see Dkt. No. 87). III. 24. Effect of Requested Stay The parties request the Court stay the case and all case deadlines, Court imposed and

discovery related, until March 28, 2011 pending settlement discussions. 25. In the event that a settlement cannot be reached, the parties request that the Court

extend the current case deadlines set forth in the September 2, 2010 Joint Stipulated Case Management Order and modified by the Court's November 30, 2010 Order and extended pursuant to the Court's January 5, 2011 Order extending all case deadlines as set forth below: Event Schedule Established by September 2 Order 4-Week Extension Granted Pursuant to Nov. 30 Order Extension Granted Pursuant to Jan. 5 Order March 28, 2011 Additional Extension Requested by this Stipulation April 27, 2011

Parties file Joint Claim

November 23, 2010

December 21, 2010 4

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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

Construction and Prehearing Statement. Patent L.R. 4-3 Amended pleadings deadline Deadline for completing discovery on issues relating to claim construction for the patents-insuit. Patent L.R. 4-4 Lenovo files Opening Claim Construction Brief. Patent L.R. 45(a) Shuttle files Opposition Claim Construction Brief. Patent L.R. 45(b) Lenovo files Reply Claim Construction Brief. Patent L.R. 45(c) Claim Construction Hearing December 7, 2010 January 4, 2011 April 11, 2011 May 11, 2011

December 23, 2010

January 20, 2011

April 29, 2011

May 31, 2011

January 7, 2011

February 4, 2011

May 13, 2011

June 13, 2011

January 21, 2011

February 18, 2010

May 27, 2011

June 27, 2011

January 28, 2011

February 25, 2011

June 3, 2011

July 5, 2011

March 4, 2011

April 1, 2011

To be set by Court on a date convenient to the Court on or after July 1, 2011

To be set by Court on a date convenient to the Court on or after

5
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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 6
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

Parties relying upon advice of counsel to support any claim or defense must produce and serve all supporting documents. Patent L.R. 3-7.

50 days after issuance of Claim Construction Order

50 days after issuance of Claim Construction Order

50 days after issuance of Claim Construction Order

August 1, 2011 50 days after issuance of Claim Construction Order

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order staying this case and all deadlines until March 28, 2011. SO STIPULATED: Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 25, 2011

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

By: /s/ Fred I. Williams FRED I. WILLIAMS Attorneys for Plaintiff LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.

Dated: February 25, 2011

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

By: /s/ Robert B. Morrill

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
1

ROBERT B. MORRILL1 Attorneys for Defendants SHUTTLE, INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP, INC.

Pursuant to General Order 45(X), the filer of this document hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from Robert B. Morrill.

7
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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 [To be set by Court on a date convenient to the Court on or after August 1, 2011] 50 days after issuance of Claim Construction Order June 27, 2011 June 13, 2011 May 31, 2011 April 27, 2011

[PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The case is stayed and all case deadlines, Court imposed and discovery related, are

stayed until March 28, 2011 pending settlement discussions; and 2. In the event a settlement cannot be reached, the current case deadlines set forth in the

Joint Stipulated Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 67) entered by this Court on September 2, 2010 and modified pursuant to the Court's November 30, 2010 Order and extended pursuant to the Court's January 5, 2011 Order will be extended as follows: Parties file Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. Patent L.R. 4-3 Amended pleadings deadline. Deadline for completing discovery on issues relating to claim construction for the patents-in-suit. Patent L.R. 4-4 Lenovo files Opening Claim Construction Brief. Patent L.R. 4-5(a) Shuttle files Opposition Claim Construction Brief. Patent L.R. 4-5(b) Lenovo files Reply Claim Construction Brief. Patent L.R. 4-5(c) Claim Construction Hearing.

May 11, 2011

July 5, 2011

Parties relying upon advice of counsel to support any claim or defense must produce and serve all supporting documents. Patent L.R. 3-7.

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

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 9
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY CASE NO. 5:08-CV-3454-JF-PSG

HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/28/11 Dated: ________________________