Softvault Systems, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER granting 30 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Modify Scheduling Order filed by Novell, Inc.. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on March 22, 2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2013)CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 31 .

Case5:12-cv-05541-LHK Document30 Filed03/20/13 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Sterling A. Brennan (CA Bar No. 126019)
L. Rex Sears (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

MASCHOFF BRENNAN

20 Pacifica, Suite 1130
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

&

1010 North 500 East, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84054
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Counsel for Defendant
NOVELL, INC.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
NOVELL, INC.,

Case No. 5:12-cv-05541-LHK
STIPULATED MOTION TO
MODIFY SCHEDULE,
PROPOSED ORDER, AND
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Defendant.

16
17
18

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

19

(“Scheduling Order,” ECF No. 23) in the above-captioned action (“Action”) and in two

20

companion actions: SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Case No. 12-CV-5544 LHK

21

(“RIM Action”) and SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Case No.

22

12-CV-5546 LHK (“IBM Action”). The RIM Action has since settled and been dismissed.

23

Also on February 4, 2013, the Court set “Defendant Novell, Inc.’s Motion to: (1) Dismiss

24

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and (2) Transfer to Utah to Cure Defects in

25

Personal Jurisdiction and Venue” (“Motion to Dismiss,” ECF No. 15) for hearing on May 9,

26

2013. By its Motion to Dismiss, defendant Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) seeks to have the “Complaint

27

for Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,868 and 6,594,765” (“Complaint”) of plaintiff

28

SoftVault Systems, Inc. (“SoftVault”) dismissed and the Action transferred to the United States
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE

CASE NO. 5:12-CV-05544-LHK

Case5:12-cv-05541-LHK Document30 Filed03/20/13 Page2 of 4

1

District Court for the District of Utah (“Utah Court”). Although SoftVault does not concede that

2

Novell’s Motion to Dismiss has any merit, SoftVault has agreed to join Novell in a request that

3

the Court continue certain deadlines imposed by the Scheduling Order until after the Court hears

4

and decides Novell’s Motion to Dismiss. Hence this stipulated motion.

5
6

Specifically, Novell and SoftVault move the Court to modify the Scheduling Order as set
forth in the following table:

7

Event

Scheduling Order

Proposed Schedule

8

Last day to amend pleadings

April 18, 2013

May 30, 2013

9

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

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

June 20, 2013

July 3, 2013

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

19

August 23, 2013

No change

20

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

September 12, 2013 No change

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

September 19, 2013 No change

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The proposed modifications do not affect Court proceedings in this Action that are presently
coordinated with the IBM Action, or reduce the time available to the Court to review materials
before the claim construction hearing. More specifically, the proposed modifications do not affect
the technology tutorial and claim construction hearing dates, which will remain coordinated with
the corresponding dates in the IBM Action; and the proposed modifications do not reduce the
time between the conclusion of claim construction briefing and the claim construction hearing.
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE

2

CASE NO. 5:12-CV-05544-LHK

Case5:12-cv-05541-LHK Document30 Filed03/20/13 Page3 of 4

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

1
2

respectfully request that the Court enter an order modifying the schedule as set forth above.

3

Undersigned counsel for Novell attests that he has obtained the concurrence of below-identified

4

counsel for SoftVault in the filing of this document.

5

Dated: March 20, 2013

Dated: March 20, 2013

6

Jonathan T. Suder
Corby R. Vowell
Todd I. Blumenfeld

Sterling A. Brennan
L. Rex Sears

By: /s/ Corby R. Vowell
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC.

By: /s/ L. Rex Sears
Attorneys for Defendant
NOVELL, INC.

7
8
9
10
11

[Proposed] ORDER

12

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

13
14

MASCHOFF BRENNAN

FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE

Dated:

March 22

, 2013

15

Lucy H. Koh
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE

3

CASE NO. 5:12-CV-05544-LHK

Case5:12-cv-05541-LHK Document30 Filed03/20/13 Page4 of 4

1
2

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), Novell’s undersigned counsel declares, under penalties of

3

perjury under the laws of the United States of America (and using terms as defined in the

4

foregoing “Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule” [“Motion to Modify”]), that:

5

1.

The reasons for seeking the continuances request by the Motion to Modify are

6

twofold. First, because Novell’s Motion to Dismiss may result in this Action being

7

transferred to the Utah Court, which does not share this Court’s Local Patent

8

Rules, Novell desires to have its Motion to Dismiss decided before Novell is

9

required to comply with deadlines and requirements imposed by this Court’s

10

Patent Local Rules. Second, Novell is negotiating terms with an indemnitor, and it

11

would be best for all concerned—SoftVault, Novell, and the indemnitor—if those

12

negotiations were concluded in advance of extensive substantive engagement with

13

the issues.

14

2.

There have been no previous time modifications in the Action.

15

3.

The modifications requested by the Motion to Modify will not affect the schedule

16

for the Action other than as set forth in the Motion to Modify. Specifically,

17

although the deadline to amend pleadings would be continued, as would various

18

deadlines falling before opposition claim construction briefs under Patent Local

19

Rules 4-5(b) and 4-5(c), those continuances would not affect subsequent events.

20

/s/ L. Rex Sears

Dated: March 20, 2013

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE

4

CASE NO. 5:12-CV-05544-LHK