Filed: Jan. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2013
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [P ROP OSED] ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF JANUARY 24, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. The parties to this action—plaintiff ADC Technology, Inc. ("ADC") and defendants Palm, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (collectively, "Palm")—respectfully submit this stipulation, requesting that the Court continue the Case Management Conference previously scheduled in this action for January 24, 2013 to a date in May 2013, or an alternative future date
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [P ROP OSED] ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF JANUARY 24, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. The parties to this action—plaintiff ADC Technology, Inc. ("ADC") and defendants Palm, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (collectively, "Palm")—respectfully submit this stipulation, requesting that the Court continue the Case Management Conference previously scheduled in this action for January 24, 2013 to a date in May 2013, or an alternative future date ..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF JANUARY 24, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
The parties to this action—plaintiff ADC Technology, Inc. ("ADC") and defendants Palm, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (collectively, "Palm")—respectfully submit this stipulation, requesting that the Court continue the Case Management Conference previously scheduled in this action for January 24, 2013 to a date in May 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.
Good cause exists for this requested continuance of the Case Management Conference, since (a) this action is presently stayed pending reexamination of the patents-in-suit by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") and (b) there has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit, as set forth below:
• This is a patent case in which the plaintiff, ADC, asserts three patents—namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,985,136 (the "`136 patent"), 7,057,605 (the "`605 patent") and 7,567,361 (the "`361 patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit").
• In mid-2011, pursuant to a third-party request, the PTO ordered reexamination of each of the three patents-in-suit.
• In July 2011, defendant Palm filed a stipulated motion to stay this case pending final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit by the PTO. (See Docket No. 68.) Plaintiff ADC stipulated to this stay motion. (Id.)
• On July 25, 2011, the Court granted the stipulated stay motion and ordered that "[t]his action is stayed pending final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit" by the PTO. (See Docket No. 70.) In its order, the Court instructed the parties to advise the Court when the PTO has issued a final determination on reexamination. (Id.) In addition, the Court set a case management conference for May 11, 2012, which was subsequently re-set for May 18, 2012. (Id.)
• In May 2012, defendant Palm and plaintiff ADC filed a joint stipulation requesting continuance of the case management conference until a date in September 2012, noting that there has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit and indicating agreement that a continued stay in this action was appropriate. (See Docket No. 72.) The Court thereafter granted the stipulated request and re-set the case management conference for September 28, 2012. (See Docket No. 73.)
• In September 2012, defendant Palm and plaintiff ADC filed a joint stipulation requesting continuance of the case management conference until a date in January 2013, again noting that there has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit and indicating agreement that a continued stay in this action was appropriate. (See Docket No. 74.) The Court thereafter granted the stipulated request and re-set the case management conference for January 25, 2013. (See Docket No. 75.)
• In December 2012, the Clerk issued a notice resetting the case management conference for January 24, 2013. (See Docket No. 76.)
• There has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit. Although the PTO issued a reexamination certificate for the `136 patent in December 2011, the reexamination proceedings that the PTO initiated in mid-2011 on the `605 and `361 patents remain ongoing. And in addition to the reexamination proceedings initiated by the PTO in mid-2011, the PTO has initiated additional reexamination proceedings on the `136, `361, and `605 patents in July, November, and December 2012, respectively. Reexamination proceedings for all of the patents-in-suit thus remain ongoing.
• The parties presently agree that (a) this action should remain stayed pending a final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit and (b) the Case Management Conference should be continued to a date in May 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court. The parties further agree that if any of the reexaminations are completed before the rescheduled Case Management Conference, either party may file a motion to have the stay lifted, and the other party may oppose the motion.
In view of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Case Management Conference previously set for January 24, 2013 be continued to a date in May 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Case Management Conference previously set for January 24, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. is hereby continued to May 16, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtr oom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by May 9, 2013.
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
I, Nathan L. Walker, hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence in the electronic filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
