Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Vir2us, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 3:16-cv-06988-VC. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170623884 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jun. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE (DKT. 104) AND ORDER VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Plaintiff Vir2us, Inc. ("Vir2us") and Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. and Sourcefire LLC ("Defendants"), after consultation with the Court, hereby stipulate and agree that—with the exception of Defendants' supplemental response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4, Defendants' agreed 1 supplemental production and identification of documents required by Patent Local Rule 3-4(d), and the parties' exc
More

JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE (DKT. 104) AND ORDER

Plaintiff Vir2us, Inc. ("Vir2us") and Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. and Sourcefire LLC ("Defendants"), after consultation with the Court, hereby stipulate and agree that—with the exception of Defendants' supplemental response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4, Defendants' agreed1 supplemental production and identification of documents required by Patent Local Rule 3-4(d), and the parties' exchange of damages contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-8 and 3-9 (collectively, the "Initial Damages Discovery Items")—all other damages-related discovery shall be rescheduled to commence after the Court issues its claim construction and dispositive motion ruling(s) (collectively, "Dispositive Rulings"). Defendants' supplemental response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4 and agreed supplemental production of documents required by Patent Local Rule 3-4(d) shall include (to the extent not already produced, but maintained in the ordinary course of business) units sold, sales, revenue, cost, and profit information for each Accused Product2 identified in Plaintiff's Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) disclosure and shall cover the time-period of 2010 to present.

The parties stipulate and agree that the following deadlines shall apply to the Initial Damages Discovery Items:

Event Deadline Defendants' supplemental response to June 21, 2017 Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4 and Defendants' agreed supplemental production of documents required by Patent Local Rule 3-4(d) Vir2us's amended disclosure of damages July 14, 2017 contentions (P.L.R. 3-8) Defendants' disclosure of responsive August 4, 2017 damages contentions (P.L.R. 3-9)

The parties further stipulate and agree that following the issuance of the last of the Court's Dispositive Rulings related to claim construction and/or dispositive motions heard at the currently scheduled March 7, 2018 hearing, fact discovery relating only to damages issues shall recommence and last 60 days, to be followed by a 73-day period for expert discovery relating only to damages issues and then a 14-day period to file any Daubert motions related to damages issues. Accordingly, the following deadlines shall apply to the damages-related discovery period:

Event Deadline Damages-related fact discovery ends 60 days after the Court issues its final Dispositive Ruling Vir2us's opening expert report on damages 10 days after damages-related fact discovery ends Defendants' rebuttal expert report on 28 days after Vir2us's opening expert report on damages damages Vir2us's reply expert report on damages 21 days after Defendants' rebuttal expert report on damages Damages expert discovery ends 14 days after Vir2us's reply expert report on damages Daubert motions on damages-related issues 14 days after close of damages expert discovery

The foregoing has been stipulated and agreed to by and among the parties, this 20th day of June, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1, I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence of the above noted signatories as indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. Dated: June 20, 2017.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff contends there are deficiencies in Defendants' existing production and identification of documents required by Patent Local Rule 3-4(d). Defendants disagree. In an effort to resolve the dispute, Defendants have agreed to make a supplemental document production and identification of documents as part of its supplemental response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4, which Defendants hope will moot the dispute. The parties reserve all rights regarding that dispute.
2. Defendants have objected to the definition of "Accused Products" set forth in Plaintiff's Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) disclosure. Plaintiff has neither agreed nor acquiesced to those objections. Defendants will provide the categories of information described herein by June 21 in accordance with their objections. If Plaintiff believes those objections are improper or result in an improper narrowing or exclusion of products, then the parties shall confer after June 21, and Plaintiff maintains the right to raise any such unresolved dispute with the Court immediately following the meet-and-confer process.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer