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)
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?