Integrated Technological Systems, Inc. v. Green Dot Corporation

Filing 54

ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting 52 Stipulation Regarding Partial Alignment of Cases and Mooting of Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases Denying as Moot 24 Motion to Consolidate Cases and Vacating 6/5/12 Hearing. 2:11-cv-01625 reassigned to Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen for pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/4/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4

Michael D. Rounds (Nevada Bar No. 4734)
Ryan Johnson (Nevada Bar No. 9070)
WATSON ROUNDS
777 North Rainbow Blvd., Suite 350
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8

Steve W. Berman (Admitted pro hac vice)
Andrew M. Volk (Admitted pro hac vice)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]

11

Nicholas S. Boebel (Admitted pro hac vice)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
5001 Chowen Ave. S., Suite 2000
Minneapolis, MN 55410
Telephone: [phone]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff Integrated Technological Systems, Inc.

9
10

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
15
16

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

17
v.

18
19

GREEN DOT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

20

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01626-GMN-(PAL)
STIPULATION REGARDING PARTIAL
ALIGNMENT OF CASES AND MOOTING
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES

AND ORDER

21
22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

STIPULATION REGARDING PARTIAL
ALIGNMENT OF CASES
005005-12 524614 V1

No. 2:11-cv-01626-GMN-(PAL)

1

On Tuesday May 29, 2012, Integrated Technology Systems, Inc. (“ITS”) and Green Dot

2

Corporation (“Green Dot”), along with NetSpend Corporation (“NetSpend”), met and conferred

3

regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01625-GMN-(GWF) (Dkt.

4

30) and Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01626-GMN-(PAL) (Dkt. 24) (“the Actions”). The parties in

5
6

the respective Actions reached agreement on measures to partially align the cases that the parties

7

believe will minimize the burden of the litigations on the parties and the Court and moot ITS’s

8

Motion to Consolidate. All information required pursuant to Local Rule 26.4 was submitted to

9

the Court on May 29, 2012 in the parties’ Stipulated Request For Extension of Deadlines (Dkt.

10
11

51) and is incorporated herein by reference.
It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties through their counsel of record as

12
follows:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1.

The respective Actions shall be assigned to a single magistrate judge for further

pre-trial proceedings;
2.

The respective Actions shall proceed on parallel schedules through and including

the discovery cut-off date as set forth below:
Defendant to serve initial disclosure of
noninfringement, invalidity and
unenforceability contentions pursuant to
Local Rule 16.1-8

June 7, 2012

Defendant to produce documents
accompanying initial disclosure of
invalidity contentions pursuant to Local
Rule 16.1-9

June 7, 2012

ITS to serve response to initial
noninfringement, invalidity and
unenforceability contentions pursuant to
Local Rule 16.1-10

June 21, 2012

All parties in both Actions to exchange
proposed terms for claim construction
pursuant to Local Rule 16.1-13

July 5, 2012

STIPULATION REGARDING PARTIAL
ALIGNMENT OF CASES

-1005005-12 524614 V1

1

All parties in both Actions to meet and
confer regarding claim terms pursuant to
Local Rule 16.1-13

July 11, 2012

All parties in both Actions to exchange
preliminary claim constructions and
extrinsic evidence pursuant to Local Rule
16.1-14

July 27, 2012

All parties in both Actions to submit
common Joint Claim Construction and
Prehearing Statement pursuant to Local
Rule 16.1-15

August 10, 2012

ITS to submit opening claim construction
brief pursuant to Local Rule 16.1-16

September 17, 2012

Each Defendant to submit responsive
claim construction brief pursuant to Local
Rule 16.1-16

October 5, 2012

ITS to submit consolidated reply claim
construction brief pursuant to Local Rule
16.1-16 of up to 40 pages

October 19, 2012

Markman Hearing in both Actions

TBD

15

Expert Disclosures on Issues for which a
Party Bears the Burden of Proof

30 days after the Markman decision

16

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

60 days after the Markman decision

17

Discovery cut-off date

120 days after the Markman decision

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

18
19

With the exception of the date for submission of Plaintiff’s reply claim construction brief, which

20

is extended by seven (7) days, all other dates remain unchanged from the Actions’ respective

21

Scheduling Order and the respective Stipulated Request For Extension of Deadlines. The

22

Scheduling Order shall not be further modified in either Action absent a showing of good cause,

23

and any modification of the above deadlines in either Action shall apply to both Actions.

24
25

3.

The Markman hearings in the Actions shall proceed concurrently on a date and in

a manner determined by the Court. The dispositive motion deadline and any dispositive motion

26
STIPULATION REGARDING PARTIAL
ALIGNMENT OF CASES

-2005005-12 524614 V1

1

hearings in the respective Actions shall proceed concurrently on a date and in a manner

2

determined by the Court. Except for the scheduling coordination and common submissions

3

noted above, the Actions will remain separate; and their respective Rule 26(f) Reports, Protective

4

Orders, and Discovery Plans shall be unaffected by this Stipulation.

5
6
7

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT. The hearing

on Plaintiff’s Motions to Consolidate set for June 5, 2012 is VACATED.
DATED: June 1, 2012

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Michael D. Rounds, Nevada Bar No. 4734
Ryan Johnson, Nevada Bar No. 9070
WATSON ROUNDS
777 North Rainbow Blvd., Suite 350
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

W. West Allen
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

By:
s/ Steve W. Berman
Steve W. Berman (Admitted pro hac vice)
Andrew M. Volk (Admitted pro hac vice)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Nicholas S. Boebel (Admitted pro hac vice)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
5001 Chowen Ave. S., Suite 2000
Minneapolis, MN 55410
Telephone: [phone]

By:
s/ Ameer Gado
J. Bennett Clark (Admitted pro hac vice)
Ameer Gado (Admitted pro hac vice)
BRYAN CAVE LLP
211 N. Broadway, Ste. 3600
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Green Dot
Corporation

Attorneys for Plaintiff Integrated
Technological Systems, Inc.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2012.

25

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United StatesSTIPULATION REGARDING PARTIAL
District Judge

26

ALIGNMENT OF CASES

-3005005-12 524614 V1