Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Doc 247 TiVo v Verizon

Doc 247 TiVo v Verizon

Ratings: (0)|Views: 78|Likes:
Published by Sam Biller
Order from Magistrate Craven granting TiVo's opposed motion for a status conference. Markman claims construction will be issued by the court no later than March 16th. The Status Conference will be held in February. I would expect a trial no later than May 16th.
Order from Magistrate Craven granting TiVo's opposed motion for a status conference. Markman claims construction will be issued by the court no later than March 16th. The Status Conference will be held in February. I would expect a trial no later than May 16th.

More info:

Published by: Sam Biller on Jan 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/26/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTOF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASMARSHALL DIVISIONTIVO, INC.§§Plaintiff§§CAUSE NO. 2:09cv257v.§§VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,§ET AL.§§Defendants§ORDER LIFTING STAY ANDSCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE
The above-referenced case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judgefor pre-trial purposes in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Before the Court is the following motion:TiVo’s Opposed Motion for a Status Conference (Docket Entry # 241). The Court, having reviewedthe motion and the response, is of the opinion the motion should be
GRANTED
.In its motion, TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”) requests the Court schedule a status conference to discusslifting the stay of this case and entering a scheduling order. Verizon Communications, Inc.(“Verizon”) opposes TiVo’s request. Verizon first asserts a key basis for the stay was the absenceof a claim construction ruling, and the Court has still not issued its ruling. Secondly, according toVerizon, half of the patents in suit (two of the three TiVo patents and two of the five Verizoncounterclaim patents) are in reexamination before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).Verizon asserts awaiting the PTO’s ruling will promote efficient and expeditious disposition of theclaims, conserve judicial resources, and allow the Court to benefit from the PTO’s analysis. Finally,Verizon argues this case should follow the
 Motorola Mobility v. TiVo
case (Case No. 5:11-CV-53), because Motorola is Verizon’s supplier of the accused devices and, if Motorola prevails, it could
Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 247 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 8750
 
greatly simplify the issues in this case.After conducting a status conference on November 10, 2011, Judge Folsom stayed this case,due to the Court’s schedule and the fact that the undersigned had stayed
 Motorola Mobility, Inc. v.TiVo Inc.
(Case No. 5:11-CV-53), a related case, until January of 2012. Judge Folsom indicated hewas dedicating his resources to the scheduled January trial in the related
TiVo v. AT&T 
matter (Case No. 2:09-CV-259). However, during the November 10 status conference, Judge Folsom indicatedhe would “revisit [lifting the stay in the
Verizon
case] in early January.”
 
He further stated he would
1
await the outcome of the January 4, 2012 status conference in the
 Motorola Mobility
action beforetaking further action in this case.The
TiVo v. AT&T 
matter settled prior to trial and has been dismissed.
 
Additionally, theundersigned has lifted the stay in the
 Motorola
matter, and a scheduling order has been entered. Dueto these changes, and in accordance with Judge Folsom’s earlier statements, the Court will notfurther delay this case. Rather, the Court lifts the stay in this case and schedules a status conferenceFebruary 23, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.The parties shall meet and confer and submit to the Court, within twenty days from the dateof entry of this Order, scheduling order deadlines to govern this case. In conferring on proposeddeadlines, the parties are directed to utilize a March 16, 2012 deadline for claim construction ruling,even though it is possible the ruling may be entered prior to that date. The parties shall also submitto the Court, within twenty days, any other issues to be addressed at the February 23 conference.Accordingly, it is 
See
Transcript of Status Conference Before the Honorable Chief Judge David Folsom at
1
 pg.5, l. 25 (November 10, 2011) at Docket Entry # 238.2
Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 247 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 8751

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->