Filed: Jul. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 28, 2014
Summary: PROPOSED STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER Nominal SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Further to the Court's May 14, 2014 Order permitting the filing of the First Supplemental Complaint, the parties Verinata Health, Inc. ("Verinata"), The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford"), Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine LLC (together "Sequenom"), and The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK") jointly submit this statement and stipula
Summary: PROPOSED STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER Nominal SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Further to the Court's May 14, 2014 Order permitting the filing of the First Supplemental Complaint, the parties Verinata Health, Inc. ("Verinata"), The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford"), Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine LLC (together "Sequenom"), and The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK") jointly submit this statement and stipulat..
More
PROPOSED STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER Nominal
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Further to the Court's May 14, 2014 Order permitting the filing of the First Supplemental Complaint, the parties Verinata Health, Inc. ("Verinata"), The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford"), Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine LLC (together "Sequenom"), and The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK") jointly submit this statement and stipulation regarding the case schedule and future conduct of the case.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The parties in this action have met and conferred, and have agreed to the case schedule and future conduct of the case presented below. The parties respectfully request that the Court modify the current pretrial and trial schedule to take into account new party CUHK and the new issues raised in the First Supplemental Complaint. The parties propose that the § 146 issues be tried in a bench trial by the Court (if necessary)1 before the jury trial.
The parties agree that the sole issue to be tried during the § 146 proceeding is whether Stanford's U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018 and U.S. Patent Application No. 12/393,833 satisfy the written description requirement for Stanford's claims. In the event CUHK prevails on this issue, the parties agree the Court will order that the judgments entered in Interference Nos. 105,920, 105,923, and 105,924 are affirmed. In the event Verinata and Stanford prevail on this issue, the parties agree that the Court will order priority of invention in favor of Quake for the subject matter of the Counts in the interferences. The parties also agree that under either outcome they will not seek remand to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for consideration of additional issues raised in the interferences, and they further agree that the Court's decision in the § 146 proceeding shall be appealable.
The parties respectfully request that the Court vacate the currently scheduled dates and order the revised schedule proposed herein by the parties. The parties respectfully request that the Court set February 23, 2015 (the date previously scheduled for trial in Verinata Health, Inc. et al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Case No. 12-cv-05501) as the date for the bench trial (if required) or the jury trial for all remaining claims. In the event that a bench trial is needed, the parties respectfully request that the jury trial follow immediately after the bench trial. The parties respectfully propose that the time/deadlines for pretrial preparation would be extended consistent with the new trial dates.
The parties have agreed and propose that the Court order as follows:
I. With respect to the § 146 issues, the parties agree and respectfully request the Court to order that:
a. There will be no new fact discovery regarding the § 146 issues absent good cause shown. In the event that good cause is shown and further fact discovery is taken, the schedule set forth below may need to be extended accordingly.
b. The records from Interference Nos. 105,920, 105,923, and 105,924 will be entered into evidence in this action and may also be utilized for the purposes of the § 146 issues ("the PTAB Record").
c. CUHK may submit an expert report in support of its positions on the § 146 issues, and Verinata/Stanford may submit a rebuttal report. After reviewing Stanford/Verinata's rebuttal report, CUHK may decide to submit a rebuttal report to Stanford/Verinata's rebuttal report. Fact and expert witness discovery previously scheduled or taken in this matter may be utilized for the purposes of the § 146 issues.
II. CUHK and Verinata/Stanford have further agreed that in consideration for agreeing to proceed as set out herein, and if their agreement is approved by the Court, CUHK will consent to personal jurisdiction in this District for purposes of the § 146 action. In further consideration, Verinata/Stanford will dismiss without prejudice Action No. 1:14-cv-688 filed on June 9, 2014 in the Eastern District of Virginia relating to the § 146 issues.
III. Unless Sequenom and/or CUHK successfully obtain a summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018, the § 146 issues will be tried to the Court in a bench trial (before the jury trial) scheduled for February 23, 2015. Subject to the outcome of motions for summary judgment, any remaining issues of infringement, validity, willfulness, and damages, will be tried to a jury immediately after any bench trial. To the extent a bench trial is unnecessary, the jury trial will be scheduled to commence on February 23, 2015.
II. STIPULATED CASE SCHEDULE
Event Date
CUMK expert report on § 146 issues August 29, 2014
Verinata/Stanford rebuttal expert report on September 9, 2014
§ 146 issues
CUMK rebuttal expert report on § 146 September 16, 2014
issues (optional to CUHK)
Expert discovery cutoff September 26, 2014
Last day to file dispositive motions October 10, 2014
Last day to file dispositive motion October 24, 2014
opposition briefs
Civil L.R. 7-3(a)
Last day to file dispositive motion reply October 31, 2014
briefs
Civil L.R. 7-3(c)
Dispositive Motion Hearing November 14, 2014
Last day to file Joint Pretrial Conference January 27, 2015
Statement, trial witness list and summary
of proposed testimony, deposition and
written discovery desiguations, jury
instructions, admissibility stipulations,
motions in limine, and trial
exhibits/objections.
Judge Illston's Pretrial Instruction Nos. 1,
2, 3, 5(b, 6
Last day to file responses to motions in February 3, 2015
limilte.
Judge Illston's Pretrial Instruction No. 6
Pretrial Conference February 10, 2015
Bench trial February 23 - February 24, 2015
Jury trial February 23, 2015 or immediately
following bench trial
CERTIFICATION
I, Derek C. Walter, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file this Stipulation. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that all signatories listed and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, have concurred in this filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
