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)

Download PDF
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?