EIT Holdings LLC v. Monster Worldwide, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER Clarifying Procedural Schedule. Signed by Judge Whyte on 9/9/2011. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011)

1
2
3
4

E-FILED on

9/9/2011

5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

EIT HOLDINGS, LLC,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

No. C-11-02472 RMW
ORDER CLARIFYING PROCEDURAL
SCHEDULE

v.
MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

On September 2, 2011, defendant Monster Worldwide, Inc. ("Monster") filed a letter with
the court requesting clarification of the procedural schedule. Dkt. No. 28. Specifically, Monster
asks whether the parties are required to comply with the patent disclosure requirements under the
Patent Local Rules before the further case management conference set for October 21, 2011. Id.
This case is one of several brought by plaintiff against different defendants asserting
infringement of the same patent claims. On August 12, 2011, the court held an initial case
management conference and asked the parties to explore the possibility of consolidating all related

25
actions for the purposes of claim construction. Dkt. No. 27. In the parties' Joint Case Management
26
Statement, Monster had proposed that the case be set on a schedule that would allow a claim
27
28

construction ruling to issue in the first-filed case before the present parties are required to serve

ORDER CLARIFYING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—No. C-11-02472 RMW
LJP

1

infringement and invalidity contentions. Dkt. No. 23 at 7. Plaintiff, on the other hand, proposed to

2

follow the schedule as provided for in the Patent Local Rules. Id.

3

The Patent Local Rules contemplate that parties will generally exchange infringement and

4

invalidity contentions before proceeding to claim construction. The court does not see a basis for

5

waiting until after the further case management conference, as that date is independent of when

6

claim construction will occur. Moreover, the timing of claim construction proceedings is uncertain,

7

given the possibility of consolidation. Thus, the court finds the parties should exchange

8

infringement and invalidity contentions as set forth in the Patent Local Rules. Based on Monster's

9

representation that it was served with infringement contentions on August 26, 2011, Dkt. No. 28 at

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1, Monster shall serve its invalidity contentions no later than October 10, 2011. See Patent L.R. 3-3.

11

The court anticipates that the parties will address claim construction scheduling at the further

12

case management conference. Thus, at this time, the parties need not follow the schedule set forth in

13

Patent L.R. 4 unless both parties agree to do so.

14
15
16
17

DATED:

9/9/2011
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER CLARIFYING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—No. C-11-02472 RMW
LJP
2