GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 231

Case Management Order. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 4/3/2014. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2014)

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

GPNE CORP.,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

Clerk: Martha Parker Brown
Reporter: Lee-Anne Shortridge

19
20
21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Howard Susser, Barry Bumgardner,
Patricia Peden
Defendant’s Attorneys: Katherine Lutton, Christopher Green,
Benjamin Elacqua, Matthew
Hawkinson, Aamir Kazi, Joseph
Mueller

On April 3, 2014, the Court held a case management conference and a hearing on Apple’s
Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement and Invalidity, Apple’s Motions to Exclude
the Testimony of Dr. Dinan and Mr. Dansky, Apple’s Motions to Strike Dr. Dinan’s Expert Report
and Infringement Contentions, and GPNE’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Mr. Meyer.

23
24



25



26
27
28





The Court issued the following tentative rulings on the parties’ motions:
Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement: DENIED as to GPRS, under
submission as to LTE.
Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity: GRANTED as to claims 13, 18, 30,
31, and 39. DENIED as to claim 42.
Apple’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Dinan: DENIED.
Apple’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Mr. Dansky: GRANTED.
Apple’s Motion to Strike Dr. Dinan’s Expert Report: DENIED.
1

Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1




Apple’s Motion to Strike Infringement Contentions: DENIED.
GPNE’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Mr. Meyer: DENIED.

2
3
4
5
6

As to the LTE infringement issue, on Monday, April 7, 2014, the parties shall file a
two page supplemental summary judgment brief identifying (1) which Apple products GPNE
accuses of infringement based only on the products’ practicing of the GPRS standard, (2)
which Apple products GPNE accuses of infringement based only on the products’ practicing
of the LTE standard, and (3) which Apple products GPNE accuses of infringement based on
the products’ practicing of both the GPRS and LTE standards. In other words, if the Court
were to grant summary judgment of noninfringement as to LTE, as to which accused
products, if any, would the Court be granting summary judgment?

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

The Court set the following case deadlines. The parties may deviate from the expert
discovery deadlines only by stipulation.
Scheduled Event
GPNE’s Damages Expert Report
Apple Supplemental Damages Expert Report
Close of Expert Discovery: New Expert Depositions
Motions in Limine/Additional Daubert, if any
Oppositions to Motions in Limine/Daubert, if any
Final Pretrial Conference/Daubert Hearing, if any
Jury Trial
Length of Trial

Date
April 17, 2014
May 1, 2014
May 15, 2014
May 29, 2014
June 5, 2014
June 26, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.
July 14, 2014 at 9am
7 days

Each side may file a total of five motions in limine. Each’s side’s motions in limine may
not exceed a total of 15 pages; oppositions may not exceed a total of 15 pages. No replies are
permitted.

17
18
19
20

Based on the revised damages expert reports, each side may file one Daubert motion that
may not exceed three pages. Oppositions to these Daubert motions may not exceed three pages.
No replies are permitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: April 3, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER