Good Technology Corporation et al v. MobileIron, Inc.
Filing
57
STIPULATION AND ORDER re (51 in 5:12-cv-05827-EJD) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER LIMITING PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES filed by Good Technology Corporation, Good Technology Software, Inc, (56 in 5:12 -cv-05826-EJD) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER LIMITING PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES filed by Good Technology Corporation, Good Technology Software, Inc. Interim Joint Case Management Statement due by 2/21/2014. Interim Case Management Conference set for 2/28/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose. Tutorial Hearing/ Claims Construction Hearing set for 6/4/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/27/2013. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2013)
1
(All counsel listed on signature page)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
AND GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE,
INC.
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
v.
MOBILEIRON, INC.,
19
GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
AND GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE,
INC.
20
21
22
23
JOINT STIPULATION AND
XXXXXXXX
[PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING
PATENT CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART
AND MODIFYING CERTAIN
DEADLINES
Defendant.
17
18
Civil Action No. C-12-05826 EJD
Civil Action No. C-12-05827 EJD
Plaintiff,
v.
AIRWATCH LLC,
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
1
Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. (collectively
2
“Good”) and Defendant Mobile Iron, Inc. (“MobileIron”) and Defendant AirWatch LLC
3
(“AirWatch”) (all three collectively the “Parties”) file this joint stipulation requesting an Order
4
requiring Good to limit the number of patent claims asserted in each action, requiring each
5
Defendant to limit the number of prior art references1 it asserts in its respective action, and
6
modifying certain claim construction deadlines to allow the Parties sufficient time to evaluate the
7
case in order to reduce the number of asserted patent claims and prior art references across the
8
four asserted patents prior to claim construction.
9
WHEREAS in these two actions Good alleges infringement of four U.S. patents—U.S.
10
Patent Nos. 6,151,606; 7,702,322; 7,970,386; and 8,012,219—and has disclosed to MobileIron
11
and AirWatch, respectively, its asserted claims and infringement contentions, pursuant to Local
12
Patent Rule 3-1, identifying more than 65 asserted patent claims;
13
WHEREAS in these two actions MobileIron and AirWatch have each disclosed to Good
14
their invalidity contentions, pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3-3, identifying over 80 prior art
15
references, in addition to all prior references identified in the prosecution histories of the patents-
16
in-suit;
17
WHEREAS the Parties recognize that both the current number of patent claims asserted by
18
Good in each action and the number of prior references asserted by Defendants in each action may
19
unnecessarily complicate stages of the litigation, including but not limited to claim construction,
20
fact discovery, expert discovery, summary judgment proceedings, and trial, as well as inflate
21
litigation costs and frustrate judicial efficiency;
22
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s Order Approving Modification of Certain Deadlines
23
(Good v. MobileIron, Dkt. No. 48; Good v. AirWatch, Dkt. No. 39), with respect to the Court’s
24
Patent Scheduling Order (Good v. MobileIron, Dkt. No. 47; Good v. AirWatch, Dkt. No. 37), the
25
claim construction process in each case is scheduled to begin on September 27, 2013 with the
26
Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction;
27
28
1
The reference to “prior art” herein is not intended to have any bearing as to whether any such
prior art reference meets the legal requirements to be deemed “prior art” under pertinent legal
authority.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
1
1
WHEREAS the Parties recognize that a reduction in the number of patent claims asserted
2
by Good in these actions and the number of prior art references asserted by Defendants is
3
appropriate at this stage of the litigations (i.e., prior to claim construction), and once again after
4
the claim construction process is complete;
5
WHEREAS the Advisory Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
6
recently provided, on or about July 23, 2013, a Model Order Limiting Excess Patent Claims and
7
Prior Art recommending a reduction of the number of patents claims asserted by a plaintiff in an
8
action to at most a total of 32 claims prior to claim construction and at most a total of 16 claims
9
after construction, and a corresponding reduction of prior art references asserted by a defendant to
10
at most a total of 40 references prior to claim construction, and at most a total of 20 references
11
after claim construction;
12
WHEREAS the Parties agree that time, including but not limited to time for discovery, is
13
needed for the Parties to evaluate the case in order to reduce the number of asserted patent claims
14
across the four asserted patents and to reduce the number of asserted prior art references for
15
Good’s four asserted patents;
16
WHEREAS the Parties further agree that a modification of current claim construction
17
deadlines will allow for a more effective exchange of materials relating to claim construction in
18
light of the reduction in the number of patent claims asserted by Good and the number of prior art
19
references asserted by Defendants in each action, and limit the claim construction issues that may
20
be presented to the Court;
21
22
WHEREAS the Parties are also respectively scheduled to engage in mediation in October
and November 2013;
23
THEREFORE:
24
1.
The Parties request a stipulated Order setting new deadlines for the reduction of the
25
number of patent claims asserted by Good and reduction of the number of prior art references
26
asserted by MobileIron and AirWatch, as well as modifying certain existing deadlines, as follows:
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
2
1
CURRENT DATE2
MODIFIED DATE
Good’s Preliminary Election of No More
Than 32 Total Asserted Claims
N/A
December 6, 2013
Defendants’ Preliminary Election of No
More Than 40 Total Asserted Prior Art
References3 4 5
N/A
January 3, 2013
Exchange of Proposed Terms for
Construction (see Patent L.R. 4–1)
September 27, 2013
January 10, 2013
Exchange of Preliminary Claim
Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence
(see Patent L.R. 4–2)
October 18, 2013
January 31, 2014
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
Statement (see Patent L.R. 4–3)
November 8, 2013
February 21, 2014
Joint Case Management Statement for
Interim Conference (The Statement shall,
among other things, update the court on
the parties’ readiness for the Markman
hearing)
November 8, 2013
February 21, 2014
Interim Case Management Conference
November 15, 2013
at 10 a.m.
February 28, 2014 at
10 a.m.6
EVENT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
As set forth in the Court’s Patent Scheduling Order (Good v. MobileIron, Dkt. No. 47; Good
v. AirWatch, Dkt. No. 37) as modified by the Court’s Order Approving Modification of Certain
Deadlines (Good v. MobileIron, Dkt. No. 48; Good v. AirWatch, Dkt. No. 39).
3
For the purposes of this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, a prior art instrumentality
(such as a device or process) and associated references that describe that instrumentality shall
count as one reference, as shall the closely related work of a single prior artist.
4
To avoid any confusion, this Preliminary Election is with respect to prior art references, not
prior art combinations under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Nothing in this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed]
Order shall impose any limitations on the number of prior art combinations AirWatch or
MobileIron may assert under 35 U.S.C. § 103, so long as it does not assert more than the 40 total
references. Additionally, this Preliminary Election is with respect to the total number of prior art
references across all asserted patents. Nothing in this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order shall
impose any limitations on the number of prior art references for any one patent.
5
Although the Defendants (MobileIron and AirWatch) jointly agree to this Joint Stipulation
and [Proposed] Order, nothing in this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order shall require
MobileIron and AirWatch to elect the same prior art references in the respective actions, neither at
the Preliminary Election nor Final Election. In the same vein, nothing in this Joint Stipulation and
[Proposed] Order shall require Good to elect the same asserted claims for both Defendants.
6
Subject to the Court’s availability.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Close of Claim Construction Discovery
(see Patent L.R. 4–4)
December 2, 2013
March 7, 2014
Opening Claim Construction Brief (see
Patent L.R. 4–5)
January 10, 2014
March 28, 2014
Responsive Claim Construction Brief
(see Patent L.R. 4–5)
January 24, 2014
April 18, 2014
Reply Claim Construction Brief (see
Patent L.R. 4–5)
January 31, 2014
May 2, 2014
Case Tutorial (see Standing Order for
Patent Cases)
March 5, 2014 at
9:00 am
June 4, 20147
Claim Construction Hearing (see
Standing Order for Patent Cases)
Following Tutorial
Following Tutorial
Good’s Final Election of No More Than
16 Total Asserted Claims8
N/A
28 days after the date
of the Court’s claim
construction order
Defendants’ Final Election of No More
Than 20 Total Asserted Prior Art
References9 10
N/A
42 days after the date
of the Court’s claim
construction order
15
16
2.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Any party may request to modify its election of asserted claims or asserted prior
art. In so doing, counsel for the requesting party shall first meet and confer in good faith with
counsel for the opposing party and explain the reasons for the proposed modification. The parties
shall engage in a good faith conference to determine whether there is good cause for the proposed
modification, also taking into account any prejudice that would be associated with the
7
Subject to the Court’s availability.
These no more than 16 total claims shall be elected from the previously identified claims in
Good’s respective Preliminary Election of No More Than 32 Total Asserted Claims.
9
These no more than 20 total prior art references shall be elected from the previously identified
prior art references in the Defendants’ respective Preliminary Election of No More Than 40 Total
Asserted Prior Art References.
8
23
24
25
10
26
27
28
To avoid any confusion, this Final Election is with respect to prior art references, not prior
art combinations under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Nothing in this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order
shall impose any limitations on the number of prior art combinations AirWatch or MobileIron may
assert under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, this Final Election is with respect to the total number
of prior art references across all asserted patents. Nothing in this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed]
Order shall impose any limitations on the number of prior art references for any one patent.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
4
1
modification.
2
following their conference, the requesting party may seek leave from the Court to modify its
3
election of asserted claims or asserted prior art. For purposes of any such motion, the requesting
4
party must specifically show why the inclusion of additional or different asserted claims or prior
5
art references is warranted.
6
3.
If the parties cannot reach agreement regarding the proposed modification
Following the election of asserted claims, Good reserves the right to move the
7
Court to stay resolution of the non-elected claims pending resolution of the elected claims.
8
Similarly, following the election of asserted prior art references, MobileIron and AirWatch reserve
9
the right to move the Court to stay resolution of the non-elected prior art pending resolution of the
10
elected prior art.
11
4.
12
Each party reserves the right to ask the Court to further limit the number of asserted
claims or the number of asserted prior art references to be presented at trial.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: September 26, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
McKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
By:
/s/ Craig N. Tolliver
Courtland L. Reichman (SBN 268873)
MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 510
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone:
(650) 394-1401
Facsimile:
(650) 394-1422
Steven J. Pollinger (pro hac vice)
Craig N. Tolliver (pro hac vice)
Geoffrey L. Smith (pro hac vice)
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone:
(512) 692-8700
Facsimile:
(512) 692-8744
Robert J. Muller (SBN 189651)
Douglas P. Roy (SBN 241607)
CYPRESS LLP
11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone:
(424) 901-0123
Facsimile:
(424) 750-5100
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Good Technology Corporation and
Good Technology Software, Inc.
1
2
3
4
Dated: September 26, 2013
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
5
By:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
/s/ Robert J. Artuz
Robert J. Artuz (SBN 227789)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1080 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 326-2400
Facsimile: (650) 326-2422
Email:
rartuz@kilpatricktownsend.com
Benjamin M. Kleinman-Green (SBN 261846)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Eighth Floor
Two Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA, 94111
Telephone: (415) 576 0200
Facsimile: (415) 576 0300
Email: bkleinman-green@kilpatricktownsend.com
Susan A. Cahoon (pro hac vice)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-6500
Facsimile: (404) 815-6555
Email:
scahoon@kilpatricktownsend.com
15
16
17
18
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff
AIRWATCH LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: September 26, 2013
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
By:
/s/ Lillian J. Mao
I. Neel Chatterjee (State Bar No. 173985)
nchatterjee@orrick.com
Vickie L. Feeman (State Bar No. 177487)
vfeeman@orrick.com
Lillian J. Mao (State Bar No. 267410)
lmao@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone:
+1-650-614-7400
Facsimile:
+1-650-614-7401
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
6
1
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff
MOBILEIRON, INC.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
7
1
Attestation of Signatures
2
I, Craig Tolliver, attest that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been
3
obtained from the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures.
4
5
______/s/ Craig Tolliver_________________________
6
7
8
9
10
11
PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
9/27/2013
Dated:_____________________
12
13
HON. EDWARD J. DAVILA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LIMITING EXCESS PATENT CLAIMS
AND PRIOR ART AND MODIFYING CERTAIN DEADLINES
CASE NOS. C-12-05826 EJD, C-12-05827 EJD
8
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?