Softvault Systems, Inc v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 31

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 30 Stipulation to Modify Schedule.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2013)

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document30 Filed05/29/13 Page1 of 4

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
2
3
4
5
6

Robert W. Stone (Bar No. 163513)
[e-mail]
Michael D. Powell (Bar No. 202850)
[e-mail]
Brice C. Lynch (Bar No. 288567)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

7 Attorneys for Defendant International Business Machines Corporation
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC.,

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK

12
Plaintiff,
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

13
vs.

14
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
15 CORPORATION,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

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

20 (“Scheduling Order,” ECF No. 23) in the above-captioned action (“Action”) and in two
21 companion actions: SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Case No. 12-CV-5544 LHK
22 (“RIM Action”) and SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-5541 LHK (“Novell
23 Action”). The RIM Action has since settled and been dismissed.
24

On March 22, 2013 the Court granted a stipulated motion to modify the scheduling order

25 in the companion Novell Action. This Action and the Novell Action involve the same Patents-in26 Suit. In an effort to foster efficiency, International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and
27 SoftVault Systems Inc. (“SoftVault”) requested that the Court continue certain deadlines imposed
28
00889.52091/5339164.1

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document30 Filed05/29/13 Page2 of 4

1 by the Scheduling Order to match the modified scheduling order in the companion Novell Action.
2 On April 1, 2013 the Court granted that request (“Modified Scheduling Order,” ECF No. 26).
3

Novell has recently requested certain changes to the schedule in the Novell Action in light

4 of having retained new counsel. In a continuing effort to foster efficiency, IBM and SoftVault
5 have agreed to request that the Court continue certain deadlines imposed by the most recent
6 Modified Scheduling Order in this Action to match the modified schedule proposed in the
7 companion Novell Action.
8

Specifically, IBM and SoftVault move the Court to amend the Modified Scheduling Order

9 as set forth in the following table:
10

Modified Scheduling
Order

Proposed Schedule

Last day to amend pleadings

May 30, 2013

No change

Invalidity contentions and
accompanying document
production (Patent L.R. 3-3, 3-4)

May 30, 2013

June 21, 2013

Exchange of proposed terms for
construction (Patent L.R. 4-1)

June 6, 2013

July 1, 2013

Exchange of preliminary claim
constructions and extrinsic
evidence (Patent L.R. 4-2)

June 20, 2013

July 8, 2013

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

July 3, 2013

July 15, 2013

20

Completion of claim construction
discovery (Patent L.R. 4-4)

July 18, 2013

No change

21

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

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

August 23, 2013

No change

Technology tutorial

September 12, 2013

No change

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

September 19, 2013

No change

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

22
23
24
25
26

Event

27
28
00889.52091/5339164.1

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
-1STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document30 Filed05/29/13 Page3 of 4

1 The proposed modifications do not affect the technology tutorial and claim construction hearing
2 dates or reduce the time available to the Court to review materials between the conclusion of claim
3 construction briefing and the claim construction hearing.
4

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

5 respectfully request that the Court enter an order modifying the schedule as set forth above.
6 Undersigned counsel for IBM attests that he has obtained the concurrence of below identified
7 counsel for SoftVault in the filing of this document.
8
9 DATED: May 29, 2013

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

10
11

By /s/ Michael D. Powell
Michael D. Powell, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation

12
13
14
15 DATED: May 29, 2013

FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE

16
By /s/ Corby R. Vowell
Corby R. Vowell, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff SoftVault Systems, Inc.

17
18
19
20

[Proposed] ORDER

21

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

22
May 30
23 DATED: __________________ 2013

24
25
26

By
Lucy H. Koh
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
00889.52091/5339164.1

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
-2STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Case5:12-cv-05546-LHK Document30 Filed05/29/13 Page4 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Local Rule 6-2(a) Declaration
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), IBM’s undersigned counsel declares, under penalties of
perjury under the laws of the United States of America (and using terms as defined in the
foregoing “Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule”), that:
1. The reasons for seeking the continuances requested by the Stipulated Motion to Modify
Schedule are twofold. First, Novell has recently requested some additional time in
light of having retained new counsel. Because both the Action and the Novell Action
involve the same Patents-In-Suit, judicial economy would be served by matching the
schedules in the companion cases. The parties expect the Court to grant a motion to
modify the schedule in the Novell Action consistent with the Proposed Schedule
described in the Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule. Approving the modifications
requested would keep the two schedules in alignment. Second, approving the
modifications requested in the Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule will allow the
parties to continue to discuss settlement options and may increase the likelihood the
dispute may be resolved before substantive engagement of the issues by the Court.
2. IBM and SoftVault twice stipulated to extend the time for IBM to reply or otherwise
respond to SoftVault’s complaint: on November 26, 2012 and December 17, 2013. And
on May 28, 2013, IBM and SoftVault stipulated to modify certain deadlines contained
in the Court’s February 24, 2013 Scheduling Order in order to align dates in this
Action with the then-applicable schedule in the companion Novell Action.
3. The modifications requested by the Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule will not
affect the schedule for the Action other than as set forth in the Stipulated Motion to
Modify Schedule. Specifically, although it would continue various deadlines falling
before opposition claim construction briefs under Patent Local Rules 4-5(b) and 4-5(c),
those continuances would not affect subsequent events.

26
27

/s/ Michael D. Powell

28

Michael D. Powell

00889.52091/5339164.1

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-05546-LHK
-3STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL