NETLIST, INC. v. SMART STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC., 4:13-CV-05889-YGR (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20141009d75
Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2014
Summary: JOINT STATEMENT WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PATENT SCHEDULE AND AMENDED COMPLAINT YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge. Pursuant to the Court's Minute Entry of September 22, 2014 [Dkt. No. 260], Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. ("Netlist") and Defendants SMART Storage Systems, Inc. ("SMART Storage") and Diablo Technologies, Inc. ("Diablo," collectively "Defendants") submit this joint statement: (1) The parties have resolved all disputes with regards to Netlist filing its Third Amended Complaint to
Summary: JOINT STATEMENT WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PATENT SCHEDULE AND AMENDED COMPLAINT YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge. Pursuant to the Court's Minute Entry of September 22, 2014 [Dkt. No. 260], Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. ("Netlist") and Defendants SMART Storage Systems, Inc. ("SMART Storage") and Diablo Technologies, Inc. ("Diablo," collectively "Defendants") submit this joint statement: (1) The parties have resolved all disputes with regards to Netlist filing its Third Amended Complaint to ..
More
JOINT STATEMENT WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PATENT SCHEDULE AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Pursuant to the Court's Minute Entry of September 22, 2014 [Dkt. No. 260], Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. ("Netlist") and Defendants SMART Storage Systems, Inc. ("SMART Storage") and Diablo Technologies, Inc. ("Diablo," collectively "Defendants") submit this joint statement:
(1) The parties have resolved all disputes with regards to Netlist filing its Third Amended Complaint to add SanDisk Corporation as a named defendant. The parties submitted a joint stipulation on October 1, 2014 [Dkt. No. 262], wherein the parties agreed that Netlist may file the amended complaint attached thereto. As such, Netlist has withdrawn its motion for leave, and all further dates related to this motion (including the October 28 hearing date) may be removed from the Court's calendar.
(2) The parties agree that discovery in the patent case shall proceed pending the PTO's decision whether to institute inter partes review (which is expected in late 2014 or early 2015). This discovery may include, but not be limited to, topics such as the structure, function, operation, marketing and sales of the accused products. By so agreeing, no party is waiving its objection that particular discovery should take place after the PTO's decision on whether to institute inter partes review. The parties propose the following schedule for the patent claims:
EVENT PARTIES' PROPOSED
DEADLINE
Non-Expert Discovery Cut Off April 15, 2015
Expert Disclosure May 1, 2015
Rebuttal Expert Disclosure May 15, 2015
Expert Discovery Cut Off May 29, 2015
Deadline for Identifying Asserted Claims May 29, 2015
Opening Brief — June 11, 2015
Dispositive Motions Opposition Brief — June 25, 2015
Reply Brief — July 2, 2015
Trial Date for Trade Secret Case July 6, 2015
In view of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Compliance Hearing currently scheduled for October 14, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. be taken off calendar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
