Softvault Systems, Inc v. Sybase, Inc.

Filing 71

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh in case 5:12-cv-01099-LHK; granting (25) Stipulation to Modify Schedule in case 5:12-cv-05546-LHK.Associated Cases: 5:12-cv-05546-LHK, 5:12-cv-01099-LHK, 5:12-cv-05541-LHK, 5:13-cv-00751-LHK, 5:13-cv-00752-LHK, 5:13-cv-00754-LHK(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2013)

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document25 Filed03/28/13 Page1 of 4

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
2
3
4
5
6

Robert W. Stone (Bar No. 163513)
[e-mail]
Michael D. Powell (Bar No. 202850)
[e-mail]
Brice C. Lynch (Bar No. 288567)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

7 Attorneys for Defendant International Business Machines Corporation
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC.,

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK

12
Plaintiff,
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

13
vs.

14
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
15 CORPORATION,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

STIPULATED MOTION
On February 4, 2013, the Court entered its “Minute Order and Case Management Order”

20 (“Scheduling Order,” ECF No. 23) in the above-captioned action (“Action”) and in two
21 companion actions: SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Case No. 12-CV-5544 LHK
22 (“RIM Action”) and SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-5541 LHK (“Novell
23 Action”). The RIM Action has since settled and been dismissed.
24

On March 22, 2013 the Court granted a stipulated motion to modify the scheduling order

25 in the companion Novell Action. This Action and the Novell Action involve the same Patents-in26 Suit. In an effort to foster efficiency, International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and
27 SoftVault Systems Inc. (“SoftVault”) have agreed to request that the Court continue certain
28
00889.52091/5239187.3

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document25 Filed03/28/13 Page2 of 4

1 deadlines imposed by the Scheduling Order to match the modified scheduling order in the
2 companion Novell Action.
3

Specifically, IBM and SoftVault move the Court to modify the Scheduling Order as set

4 forth in the following table:
5

Event

Scheduling Order

Purposed Schedule

6

Last day to amend pleadings

April 18, 2013

May 30, 2013

7

Invalidity contentions and
accompanying document
production (Patent L.R. 3-3, 3-4)

April 18, 2013

May 30, 2013

Exchange of proposed terms for
construction (Patent L.R. 4-1)

May 2, 2013

June 6, 2013

Exchange of preliminary claim
constructions and extrinsic
evidence (Patent L.R. 4-2)

May 23, 2013

June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

July 3, 2013

13

Joint claim construction and
prehearing statement (Patent L.R.
4-3)

14

Completion of claim construction
discovery (Patent L.R. 4-4)

July 11, 2013

July 18, 2013

Opening claim construction brief
(Patent L.R. 4-5(a))

July 25, 2013

No Change

Opposing claim construction brief
(Patent L.R. 4-5(b))

August 15, 2013

No Change

18

Reply claim construction brief
(Patent L.R. 4-5(c))

August 23, 2013

No Change

19

Technology tutorial

September 12, 2013

No Change

20

Claim construction hearing
(Patent L.R. 4-6)

September 19, 2013

No Change

8
9
10
11
12

15
16
17

21
22 The proposed modifications do not affect the technology tutorial and claim construction hearing
23 dates or reduce the time available to the Court to review materials between the conclusion of claim
24 construction briefing and the claim construction hearing.
25

Accordingly, IBM and SoftVault, by and through their respective undersigned counsel,

26 respectfully request that the Court enter an order modifying the schedule as set forth above.
27 Undersigned counsel for IBM attests that he has obtained the concurrence of below identified
28 counsel for SoftVault in the filing of this document.
00889.52091/5239187.3

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
-1STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document25 Filed03/28/13 Page3 of 4

1
2 DATED: March 28, 2013

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

3
4

By /s/ Michael D. Powell
Michael D. Powell, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation

5
6
7
8 DATED: March 28, 2013

FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE

9
By /s/ Corby R. Vowell
Corby R. Vowell, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff SoftVault Systems, Inc.

10
11
12
13

[Proposed] ORDER

14

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
April 1,
16 DATED: __________________ 2013

17
18
19

By
Lucy H. Koh
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00889.52091/5239187.3

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
-2STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document25 Filed03/28/13 Page4 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Local Rule 6-2(a) Declaration
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), IBM’s undersigned counsel declares, under penalties of
perjury under the laws of the United States of America (and using terms as defined in the
foregoing “Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule”), that:
1. The reasons for seeking the continuances requested by the Stipulated Motion to Modify
Schedule are twofold. First, because both the Action and the Novell Action involve the
same Patents-In-Suit, judicial economy would be served by matching the schedules in
the companion cases. The Court has already granted a motion to modify the schedule
in the Novell Action. Approving the modifications requested in this Stipulated Motion
to Modify Schedule would bring the two schedules into alignment. Second, approving
the modifications requested in this Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule will allow
SoftVault and IBM to continue to discuss settlement options and may increase the
likelihood the dispute may be resolved before substantive engagement of the issues
through the Court.
2. IBM and SoftVault twice stipulated to extend the time for IBM to reply or otherwise
respond to SoftVault’s complaint: on November 26, 2012 and December 17, 2013.
There have been no other schedule modifications in the Action.
3. The modifications requested by the Motion to Modify Schedule will not affect the
schedule for the Action other than as set forth in the Motion to Modify Schedule.
Specifically, although the deadline to amend pleadings would be continued, as would
various deadlines falling before opposition claim construction briefs under Patent
Local Rules 4-5(b) and 4-5(c), those continuances would not affect subsequent events.

23
24
25
26

/s/ Michael D. Powell
Michael D. Powell

27
28
00889.52091/5239187.3

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
-3STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL