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)

Download PDF
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?