Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Filing
713
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNGS MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLES COUNTERCLAIMS IN REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNGS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/31/2013. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Clerk: Martha Parker Brown
Reporter: Lee-Anne Shortridge
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER;
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO
APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Josh Krevitt, Mark Lyon, Mark Reiter,
Bill Lee, Mark Selwyn
Defendants’ Attorneys: Victoria Maroulis, Kevin Johnson,
Alexander Baxter, Marissa Ducca, Maxim Price
A case management conference was held on July 31, 2013. A further case management
conference is set for October 30, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
By August 2, 2013, the parties shall file stipulations of dismissal without prejudice
regarding the patents, claims, and accused products that the parties have dropped from the case.
26
27
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
2
3
4
5
In regard to the parties’ invalidity “references/systems/combinations,” the Court clarified
that each combination must be identified separately an count towards the numerical limit on
invalidity references/systems/combinations.
The parties agree to meet and confer regarding the counting of accused products after
expert discovery.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED Samsung’s Motion to Amend the
Case Management Order and for Leave to Amend Its Answer to Apple’s Counterclaims in Reply.
See ECF No. 535-1.
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court also DENIED Samsung’s Motion for Relief
from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. See ECF No. 680-3. Accordingly, the
Court DENIED as MOOT Samsung’s request to set a briefing schedule on this motion.
The Court amended the case schedule as follows:
By September 27, 2013, the parties will be required to dismiss without prejudice one patent
from the case so that neither side will be asserting more than five patents. In addition, the parties
will be required to limit their asserted claims to 10 per side and limit their accused products to 15
per side.
By September 30, 2013, the parties will be required to reduce their invalidity
references/systems/combinations to 25 per side.
14
15
16
By February 6, 2014, the parties will be required to limit their asserted claims to 5 per side
and limit their accused products to 10 per side. In addition, the parties will be required to reduce
their invalidity references/systems/combinations to 15 per side.
18
During expert discovery, each side will be limited to 15 experts and 15 opening expert
reports. Each side shall be limited to filing no more than 5 Daubert motions in this case. At trial,
each side shall be limited to no more than 12 testifying experts.
19
Scheduled Event
Date
20
Initial Expert Disclosures
August 12, 2013
Rebuttal Expert Reports
September 13, 2013
17
21
Close of Expert Discovery
September 27, 2013
22
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions
October 3, 2013
23
Opposition Briefs on Dispositive Motions
October 29, 2013
24
Reply Briefs on Dispositive Motions
November 14, 2013
Hearing on Dispositive Motions
December 12, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.
Hearing on Daubert motions
January 23, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.
26
Final Pretrial Conference
March 5, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.
27
Jury Trial
March 31, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
1
Length of Trial
2
12 days
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4
5
Dated: July 31, 2013
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?