Filed: May 19, 2015
Latest Update: May 19, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (SECOND REQUEST) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 26-4. Plaintiff Konami Gaming, Inc. ("Konami" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Marks Studios, LLC d/b/a Gimmie Games ("Marks Studios" or Defendant") hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, the parties to this action filed a proposed joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (the "Scheduling Order") on December 30, 2014, ( Docket no. 24); WHEREAS,
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (SECOND REQUEST) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 26-4. Plaintiff Konami Gaming, Inc. ("Konami" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Marks Studios, LLC d/b/a Gimmie Games ("Marks Studios" or Defendant") hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, the parties to this action filed a proposed joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (the "Scheduling Order") on December 30, 2014, ( Docket no. 24); WHEREAS, t..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (SECOND REQUEST)
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 26-4. Plaintiff Konami Gaming, Inc. ("Konami" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Marks Studios, LLC d/b/a Gimmie Games ("Marks Studios" or Defendant") hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, the parties to this action filed a proposed joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (the "Scheduling Order") on December 30, 2014, (Docket no. 24);
WHEREAS, the Court so ordered the Scheduling Order on January 27, 2015 (Docket no. 31);
WHEREAS, to date, the Plaintiff and Defendant have made their Initial Disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and have filed the Stipulated Protective Order required under Local Rule 16.1-4;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, discovery is partially stayed until the Court issues a Markman order on claim construction;
WHEREAS, the parties first requested to modify the Scheduling Order on February 6, 2015 (Docket No. 35);
WHEREAS, the Court so ordered the Scheduling Order on February 6, 2015 (Docket No. 37);
WHEREAS, the parties have disputes regarding the sufficiency of the local rule disclosures made by Plaintiff and Defendant as well as discovery related to additional Defendant products;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to stipulate to a modification of the case schedule to allow the parties sufficient time to resolve their disputes and for Plaintiff to receive from Defendant discovery related to additional Defendant products;
WHEREAS, this is the parties' second request to modify the Scheduling Order;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the named parties hereto, that the schedule in the Scheduling Order will be amended as follows:
Event Basis Proposed Date
Defendant shall produce source code and operating LR 16.1-9 May 19, 2015
documents for the ten additional games as identified
in the supplemental Asserted Claims and
Infringement Contentions
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement LR 16.1-6 June 2, 2015
Contentions
Disclosure of Non-Infringement, Invalidity and LR 16.1-8 July 2, 2015
Unenforceability Contentions
Response to Non-Infringement, Invalidity and LR 16.1-10 July 20, 2015
Unenforceability Contentions
Exchange of Proposed Terms for Claim LR 16.1-13 August 3, 2015
Construction
Exchange of Preliminary Claim Construction and LR 16.1-14 August 24, 2015
Extrinsic Evidence
Parties to Meet and Confer regarding terms LR 16.1-14 August 25-28, 2015
requiring construction and proposed meaning of the
terms
Joint Claim Construction Statement LR 16.1-15 September 9, 2015
Opening Claim Construction Brief LR 16.1-16 October 9, 2015
Responsive Claim Construction Brief LR 16.1-16 October 23, 2015
Reply Claim Construction Brief LR 16.1-16 October 30, 2015
Markman Hearing N/A To be Set By Court
N/A
Initial Expert Disclosures and Submission of November 15, 2015
Interim Status Report
N/A
Rebuttal Expert Exchange December 15, 2015
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that nothing herein alters the obligations and requirements included in the Scheduling Order and that this Stipulation is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
IT IS SO STIPULATED THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD,
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
