MCU Clocking Solutions Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor Inc.
Filing
76
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on August 12, 2015 re (73) in Case No. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2015)
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
MCU CLOCKING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
Defendant.
15
16
MCU CLOCKING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
17
Plaintiff,
18
19
v.
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
20
Defendant.
21
IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ proposed limits on discovery set forth in their joint case
management statement shall apply to this case.3
26
1
See Case No. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG, Docket No. 73.
2
See Case No. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG, Docket No. 75.
27
28
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER
case management conference,2
24
25
Case Nos. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG; 5:15-cv02546-PSG
Based on the parties’ joint case management statement1 and representations at yesterday’s
22
23
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
Case Nos. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG; 5:15-cv-2546-PSG.
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall present discovery disputes to the court
1
2
through an informal letter briefing process. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint
3
letter to the court, not to exceed three pages per side. The court shall set a hearing, if necessary, or
4
simply decide the matter on the papers.
5
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall engage in private mediation within 90
days of the court’s claim construction order.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court shall hold a further case management
8
9
conference 15 after the court’s claim construction order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
case:
12
Defendants’ preliminary invalidity contentions
and accompanying document productions .................................................... September 3, 2015
13
Parties to exchange proposed terms
and claim elements for construction .................................................................. October 1, 2015
14
15
Parties to exchange preliminary claim constructions
and identify supporting intrinsic and extrinsic evidence ................................. October 23, 2015
16
17
Joint claim construction and prehearing statements ........................................ October 30, 2015
18
Parties to identify claim construction experts ............................................... November 6, 2015
19
Completion of claim construction delivery ................................................... December 4, 2015
20
MCU’s claim construction briefs ................................................................ December 14, 2015
21
Defendants’ responsive claim construction briefs ........................................... January 11, 2016
22
MCU’s reply claim construction briefs ........................................................... January 25, 2016
23
24
Provision of claim construction tutorial
materials to parties and court ......................................................................... February 16, 2016
25
Claim construction tutorial presentations ...................................................... February 24, 2016
26
Claim construction hearings .......................................................................... February 27, 2016
27
28
3
See Case No. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG at Docket No. 73 at 4-7.
2
Case Nos. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG; 5:15-cv-2546-PSG.
CASE SCHEDULING ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Defendants to inform MCU whether they will
rely on advice of counsel as defense to willful
infringement; date by which Defendants shall
produce such opinions of counsel on which
defendants intend to rely ...................................................................................... May 19, 2016
Amendment of pleadings with respect to willful
infringement and inequitable conduct ........................................................... February 15, 2016
Close of fact discovery ......................................................................................... June 30, 2016
Initial Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert testimony........................................... August 2, 2016
Expert disclosures contradicting or rebutting the expert
disclosure of the other party on the same matter ........................................... September 5, 2016
9
Reply expert disclosures .................................................................................... October 6, 2016
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
Close of expert discovery ................................................................................ October 20, 2016
11
Deadline for case dispositive motions and briefs ........................................ November 21, 2016
12
13
Answering briefs and response to
case dispositive motions ................................................................................ December 7, 2016
14
Reply briefs in support of case dispositive motions .................................... December 14, 2016
15
Pretrial order draft ............................................................................................... March 7, 2017
16
Joint proposed final pretrial order ......................................................................... April 6, 2017
17
Pretrial conference .......................................................................... April 17, 2017 at 10:00 AM
18
Jury trial for first Defendant ................................................................ May 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM
19
Jury trial for second Defendant ......................................................... May 14, 2017 at 9:30 AM
20
21
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2015
22
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case Nos. 5:15-cv-02213-PSG; 5:15-cv-2546-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?