Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Filing
52
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER re 51 Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on November 19, 2014 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
ROTHSCHILD DIGITAL MEDIA
INNOVATIONS, LLC,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
AMERICA LLC,
Defendant.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:14-cv-03928-PSG
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER
(Re: Docket No. 51)
Based on the parties’ joint case management statement and the case management
conference on November 18, 2014, 1
19
IT IS ORDERED that the presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of
20
21
Civil Procedure shall apply to this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other
22
23
amendments to the pleadings, is 120 days after entry of this order.
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in this case will not be stayed pending claim
construction; rather the parties will proceed with all discovery concurrently.
26
27
1
28
See Docket No. 49.
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-03928-PSG
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties participate in mediation following claim
1
2
construction. The parties shall contact the ADR Unit within 7 days of the Markman Hearing to
3
choose the panel mediator and make the necessary arrangements.
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this
case:
Initial Case Management Conference ......................................................... November 18, 2014
RDMI’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions ..... December 16, 2014
SCEA’s Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions ............................................... February 19, 2015
Exchange of List of Claim Terms to Be Construed by Court ............................. March 9, 2015
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
Exchange of Proposed Constructions of Each Term to Be Construed .................. April 2, 2015
11
Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement............................................ June 4, 2015
12
Claim Construction Discovery Deadline (including experts) ................................. July 7, 2015
13
Initial Markman Brief ............................................................................................ July 20, 2015
14
Opposition to Markman Brief ............................................................................ August 6, 2015
15
Reply re Markman Brief ................................................................................... August 17, 2015
16
Markman Hearing .......................................................................................... September 2, 2015
17
Deadline to Designate Infringement Experts .............................................. September 20, 2015
18
Initial Expert Reports .................................................................................. November 20, 2015
19
Rebuttal Expert Reports .................................................................................... January 8, 2016
20
Discovery Cut-Off .......................................................................................... February 8, 2016
21
Deadline to File Opening Dispositive Motion............................................... February 23, 2016
22
Dispositive Motions Hearing ............................................................................. March 22, 2016
23
Pre-Trial Conference .............................................................................................. May 3, 2016
24
Jury Trial .......................................................................................... May 16, 2016 at 9:30 AM
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-03928-PSG
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER
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?