Softvault Systems, Inc v. Sybase, Inc.

Filing 83

PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES ON SEPTEMEBER 10, 2014 IN 14-CV-01164-LHK; 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 9/4/2014. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) GENERAL ELECTRIC, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) _______________________________________ ) ) SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) PTC, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) TANGOE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________________) SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Case No.: 14-CV-01164-LHK Related Case Nos.: 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 27 28 Case Nos.: 14-CV-01164-LHK; 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) DASSAULT SYSTEMES SOLIDWORKS ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) _______________________________________ ) ) SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) SOPHOS, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP., ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________________) 17 18 19 20 In light of the Court’s congested September 10, 2014 case management conference calendar, the Court proposes the following Case Management Order. The parties shall file any objections to the proposed case management order by September 8, 2014 at noon. If the parties file no objections, the Court will vacate the September 10, 2014 case management conferences. Softvault v. Honeywell, Case No. 14-CV-01164-LHK 21 22 23 24 The parties did not comply with this Court’s private mediation deadline of August 29, 2014. The parties are ordered to file a status report by September 11, 2014 informing the Court of their new mediation date with Judge Infante. The Court sets a new mediation deadline of November 15, 2014. 26 The case schedule remains as set in the Court’s previous Case Management Order, ECF No. 25, with the exception that the time set for trial is now only 4 days because the related case, Case No. 14-CV-01166, is settling. For the convenience of the parties, the Court sets forth the schedule below: 27 Exchange of Initial Disclosures 6/23/2014 28 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions 7/7/2014 25 Case Nos.: 14-CV-01164-LHK; 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1 Invalidity Contentions 8/21/2014 2 Parties Exchange Proposed Claim Terms for construction 9/4/2014 Last Day to Meet and Confer on Proposed Terms 9/18/2014 Parties Exchange Preliminary Claim Constructions and identify supporting evidence and experts 10/2/2014 Last Day to Meet and Confer on Narrowing Issues and Joint Claim Construction and prehearing statement 10/16/2014 8 Parties File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement 10/27/2014 9 Close of Claim Construction Discovery 11/10/2014 10 Claim Construction Opening Briefs Due 12/1/2014 Claim Construction Responsive Briefs Due 12/23/2014 Claim Construction Reply Briefs Due 1/6/2015 Technology Tutorial 2/26/2015 13 Claim Construction Hearing 3/5/2015 14 Fact Discovery Cutoff 9/5/2015 15 Parties Serve Initial Expert Reports 9/22/2015 16 Parties Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports 11/6/2015 Close Expert Discovery 12/6/2015 Last Day to File Dispositive Motions 1/5/2016 Hearing on Dispositive Motions 3/3/2016 at 1:30pm 19 Final Pretrial Conference 7/28/2016 at 1:30pm 20 Jury Trial 8/22/2016 at 9am 21 Length of Trial 4 days 3 4 5 6 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 11 12 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All other newly related cases: Case Nos. 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK The Court refers the parties in all these cases to private mediation with a deadline of December 18, 2014. Each side may file only one dispositive motion in each respective case. The Court adopts the parties’ proposed discovery limits set forth in their respective Joint Case Management Statements in each case, as follows: Case No. 14-CV-03215-LHK:  Each party is limited to 25 interrogatories.  Each party is limited to 50 requests for admission, not including requests for admission for the purpose of authenticating documents. Case Nos.: 14-CV-01164-LHK; 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 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   Each party is limited to 80 requests for production. The limits set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to depositions. Depositions taken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall be limited to 14 total hours per side.  Each party is limited to 7 total hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each expert retained by the opposing party. 14-CV-03223-LHK:  Each party is limited to 25 interrogatories.  Each party is limited to 50 requests for admission, not including requests for admission for the purpose of authenticating documents.  Each party is limited to 100 requests for production.  Each party is limited to 7 total hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each expert retained by the opposing party. However, should an expert issue more than one expert report, the opposing party is entitled to 7 additional hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each additional expert report issued by the particular expert.  Each party is limited to 10 total fact witness depositions and 70 total hours of fact witness deposition testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions are included in the 70 total hours, and the 30(b)(6) testimony shall be limited to 14 total hours per side.  In no event shall any single deposition of a witness exceed 7 hours, with the exception that expert witnesses may be deposed for 7 hours per report provided, and 30(b)(6) witnesses can be deposed pursuant to the 14 hour limitation above. However, notwithstanding the foregoing exceptions, no deposition of a witness shall exceed 7 hours in a single day unless otherwise agreed. 14-CV-03221-LHK:  Each party is limited to 25 interrogatories.  Each party is limited to 50 requests for admission, not including requests for admission for the purpose of authenticating documents.  Each party is limited to 80 requests for production.  The limits set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to depositions.  Each party is limited to 7 total hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each expert retained by the opposing party. However, should an expert issue more than one expert report, the opposing party is entitled to 4 additional hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each additional expert report issued by the particular expert. Notwithstanding the foregoing exception, no deposition of an expert shall exceed 7 hours in a single day unless otherwise agreed. 14-CV-03222-LHK:  Each party is limited to 25 interrogatories.  Each party is limited to 50 requests for admission, not including requests for admission for the purpose of authenticating documents.  Each party is limited to 80 requests for production.  Each party is limited to 7 total hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each expert retained by the opposing party. However, should an expert issue more than one expert report, the opposing party is entitled to 7 additional hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each additional expert report issued by the particular expert.  Each party is limited to 10 total fact witness depositions and 70 total hours of fact witness deposition testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions are included in the 70 total hours, and the 30(b)(6) testimony shall be limited to 14 total hours per side.  In no event shall any single deposition of a witness exceed 7 hours, with the exception that expert witnesses may be deposed for 7 hours per report provided, and 30(b)(6) witnesses can be deposed pursuant to the 14 hour limitation above. However, notwithstanding the foregoing exceptions, no deposition of a witness shall exceed 7 hours in a single day unless otherwise agreed. Case Nos.: 14-CV-01164-LHK; 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 14-CV-03212-LHK:  Each party is limited to 25 interrogatories.  Each party is limited to 60 requests for admission, not including requests for admission for the purpose of authenticating documents.  Each party is limited to 80 requests for production.  Each party is limited to 7 total hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each expert retained by the opposing party. However, should an expert issue more than one expert report, the opposing party is entitled to 7 additional hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each additional expert report issued by the particular expert.  Each party is limited to 10 total fact witness depositions and 70 total hours of fact witness deposition testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions are included in the 70 total hours, and the 30(b)(6) testimony shall be limited to 14 total hours per side.  In no event shall any single deposition of a witness exceed 7 hours, with the exception that expert witnesses may be deposed for 7 hours per report provided, and 30(b)(6) witnesses can be deposed pursuant to the 14 hour limitation above. However, notwithstanding the foregoing exceptions, no deposition of a witness shall exceed 7 hours in a single day. 11 The Court sets the case schedule in all the newly related cases as follows: 12 Exchange of Initial Disclosures 10/3/2014 10/17/2014 14 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions 15 Invalidity Contentions 12/5/2014 16 Parties Exchange Proposed Claim Terms for construction 12/19/2014 17 Last Day to Meet and Confer on Proposed Terms 1/5/2015 18 Parties Exchange Preliminary Claim Constructions and identify supporting evidence and experts 1/16/2015 Last Day to Meet and Confer on Narrowing Issues and Joint Claim Construction and prehearing statement 1/30/2015 2/13/2015 22 Parties File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement 23 Close of Claim Construction Discovery 2/27/2015 Claim Construction Opening Briefs Due 3/20/2015 Claim Construction Responsive Briefs Due 4/10/2015 Claim Construction Reply Briefs Due 4/24/2015 26 Technology Tutorial 6/11/2015 at 1:30 pm 27 Claim Construction Hearing 6/18/2015 at 1:30 pm 28 Fact Discovery Cutoff 12/18/2015 Parties Serve Initial Expert Reports 1/8/2016 13 19 20 21 24 25 Case Nos.: 14-CV-01164-LHK; 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 1 Parties Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports 2/8/2016 2 Close Expert Discovery 3/4/2016 Last Day to File Dispositive Motions 4/1/2016 Hearing on Dispositive Motions 5/19/2016 at 1:30 pm Final Pretrial Conference 8/18/2016 at 1:30 pm Jury Trial 9/26/2016 at 9am Length of Trial 20 days (4 days per defendant) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 4, 2014 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case Nos.: 14-CV-01164-LHK; 14-CV-03215-LHK; 14-CV-03223-LHK; 14-CV-03221-LHK; 14-CV-03222-LHK; 14-CV-03212-LHK PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

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?