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 .

Download PDF
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: (949) 242-1900 Facsimile: (949) 453-1104 Email: Email: & 1010 North 500 East, Suite 330 Salt Lake City, Utah 84054 Telephone: (435) 252-1360 Facsimile: (435) 252-1361 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

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?