P. 1
130

130

|Views: 86|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jan 05, 2013
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

01/06/2013

pdf

text

original

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document130 Filed01/04/13 Page1 of 7

1 (All parties and counsel listed on Signature Page) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 RAMBUS INC., 14 15 vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 3:10-cv-05446 RS JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16 LSI CORPORATION, 17 18 RAMBUS INC., 19 Plaintiff, 20 vs. 21 STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; 22 STMICROELECTRONICS INC. 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case Nos. 3:10-cv-05446 RS; 3:10-cv-05449 RS JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendant. Case No. 3:10-cv-05449 RS

Defendant.

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document130 Filed01/04/13 Page2 of 7

1

Plaintiff Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) and Defendants LSI Corporation (“LSI”) and

2 STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. (collectively, “STMicro”) hereby submit, 3 pursuant to this Court’s Order (Doc. No. 125) following the December 20, 2012 Case 4 Management Conference, the parties’ respective proposed schedules for further litigation events: 5 I. 6 RAMBUS’S PROPOSED SCHEDULE The principal difference between Rambus’s proposed schedule and Defendants’ proposed

7 schedule that follows is that, as discussed at the December 20, 2012 Case Management 8 Conference, Rambus sees no need to have separate discovery periods and dates for expert reports 9 for Defendants’ unclean hands defense and the remainder of the case. Discovery has been 10 proceeding on all issues and it would be most efficient for the parties to continue to take discovery 11 on all issues, followed by expert discovery on all issues. Indeed, at the Case Management 12 Conference, the Court proposed having discovery for all issues close on April 26, 2013 and expert 13 discovery on all issues close in July 2013, as per Rambus’s proposed schedule, and all parties 14 signified agreement with this proposal: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Yeah. In July. 26 MR. SIPIORA: Yes. 27 MR. BETTINGER: Good by ST, Your Honor. 28
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

THE COURT: So if we close fact discovery -- nonexpert discovery -- in April -- April 26th, is what I had penciled -- and I recognize that date was proposed with the notion that the trial was going to be in October; but on the idea getting everything -- as much done as you can get done in advance, and then perhaps discovery period ending in about July of 2013, any problem with that? MR. STONE: No, Your Honor. MR. BETTINGER: Expert discovery. THE COURT: Expert discovery. MR. BETTINGER: Yeah. THE COURT: Is that fine. MR. SIPIORA: All expert discovery, you're saying, for all issues?

1

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document130 Filed01/04/13 Page3 of 7

1 Tr. (12/20/12) at 29:14 – 30:5. 2 Rambus’s proposed schedule, like the Defendants’, provides for separate dates for

3 dispositive motions related to unclean hands and other issues. In their comments below, 4 Defendants suggest that there should also be a later close of discovery for issues other than 5 unclean hands because that defense may render additional litigation events unnecessary. As 6 Rambus explained in the recently-filed Joint Case Management Conference Statement, however, 7 Defendants’ unclean hands is highly unlikely to be case dispositive. Dkt. # 124 at 8-9. Moreover, 8 allowing additional time for such discovery would invite inefficiency. There has been extensive 9 discovery in prior litigation relating to spoliation and the validity of the Farmwald-Horowitz 10 patents that need not be repeated here. A close of fact discovery on all issues on April 26, 2013, 11 would ensure that the parties use the time remaining for discovery on what they actually need to 12 bring these cases to trial. Indeed, it is difficult to see how Defendants could be prejudiced by such 13 a discovery deadline given that the principal areas for discovery that have not been at issue in prior 14 litigation relate to infringement of the Farmwald-Horowitz patents by Defendants’ products and 15 the consequent damages – issues on which Rambus, not Defendants, require the bulk of discovery. 16 In addition, Rambus proposes that with respect to dates for in limine motions and for filing

17 trial exhibit lists, the parties be guided by the Court’s standing orders that addresses these events. 18 Rambus has no objection to the earlier dates for these events that Defendants propose if the Court 19 believes that additional time is warranted. Rambus submits, however, that the timing provided in 20 the Court’s standing orders should suffice, especially in light of the Court’s comment in the 21 standing order related to bench trials that, ordinarily, motions in limine are unnecessary in a bench 22 trial. Rambus therefore proposes the following schedule: 23 24 25 26 27 28 Last date for Plaintiff to identify 20 asserted claims Close of fact discovery Opening expert reports from party with burden of proof Last date to file dispositive motions re unclean hands Rebuttal expert reports Close of expert discovery January 25, 2013 April 26, 2013 May 10, 2013 June 6, 2013 June 10, 2013 July 12, 2013
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

2

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document130 Filed01/04/13 Page4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 II. 7 8

Pretrial conference for unclean hands trial Unclean hands trial Last date to file dispositive motions re patent trial Pretrial conference for patent trial Patent trial DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED SCHEDULE A.

August 15, 2013 August 26, 2013 November 14, 2013 March 27, 2014 April 14, 2014

Proposed Schedule for Unclean Hands (Spoliation) Trial Litigation Events

Defendants’ proposed schedule for an unclean hands (spoliation) trial complies with the

9 Court’s Standing Order, but sets the deadlines for exhibit lists and motions in limine earlier than 10 Rambus’s schedule. Given the amount of time the parties have to prepare for the August 2013 11 trial, Defendants believe the following schedule to be appropriate and reasonable: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Close of fact discovery regarding unclean hands (spoliation) Opening expert reports regarding unclean hands (spoliation) Rebuttal expert reports regarding unclean hands (spoliation) Close of expert discovery regarding unclean hands (spoliation) April 26, 2013 May 10, 2013 June 10, 2013 June 19, 2013

Last date to file dispositive motions regarding unclean hands (spoliation) June 26, 2013 Last date to file motions in limine regarding unclean hands (spoliation) Last date to file opposition to motions in limine Last date to file replies in support of motions in limine Parties to exchange and file trial exhibit lists Parties submit joint pretrial statement and order Parties submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Pretrial conference for unclean hands (spoliation) trial Unclean hands (spoliation) trial B. Proposed Schedule for All Other Litigation Events July 8, 2013 July 22, 2013 July 29, 2013 July 29, 2013 Aug. 2, 2013 Aug. 7, 2013 Aug. 12, 2013 Aug. 26, 2013

Defendants’ proposed schedule for all other litigation events is based, in part, on the

27 Court’s preference that dispositive motions for unclean hands (spoliation) issues be submitted 28 separate from dispositive motions on all other issues. See, e.g., Tr. (Dec. 20, 2012) at 30:6-13.
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

3

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document130 Filed01/04/13 Page5 of 7

1 This staged approach recognizes that a meritorious unclean hands defense may render additional 2 litigation events unnecessary and, thus, save the Court and parties significant time and resources 3 through a slight extension of the discovery schedule. To be clear, Defendants are not suggesting 4 that discovery for all other litigation events be stayed. Rather, Defendants submit that it would be 5 extremely difficult to complete all remaining discovery by Rambus’s above deadlines and, in light 6 of the April 2014 trial date, unnecessary to artificially accelerate fact and expert discovery. 7 Rambus’s proposal does not acknowledge that the parties have much work to do in discovery for 8 just the patent-related issues, and also does not recognize the possibility that certain of these issues 9 may ultimately be resolved through motion practice before the Special Master or this Court, e.g., 10 discovery for worldwide sales, sufficiency of infringement contentions, etc. In contrast to 11 Rambus’s suggestion above, Defendants’ proposed schedule takes into consideration these factors 12 in light of an April 2014 trial date. Defendants thus submit the following proposed schedule: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Last date for Plaintiff to identify 20 asserted claims Close of fact discovery for all remaining issues Opening expert reports for all remaining issues Rebuttal expert reports for all remaining issues Close of expert discovery for all remaining issues Last date to file dispositive motions for all remaining issues Parties to exchange and file trial exhibit lists Pretrial conference Trial for all remaining issues

January 25, 2013 September 20, 2013 October 11, 2013 November 8, 2013 December 6, 2013 December 20, 2013 March 3, 2014 March 17, 2014 April 2014

4

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document130 Filed01/04/13 Page6 of 7

1 2 DATED: January 4, 2013 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP By: /s/ Peter A. Detre Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) gregory.stone@mto.com Katherine K. Huang (SBN 219798) katherine.huang@mto.com Peter E. Gratzinger (SBN 228764) peter.gratzinger@mto.com Keith R.D. Hamilton (SBN 252115) keith.hamilton@mto.com David H. Pennington (SBN 272238) david.pennington@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) peter.detre@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP By: /s/ John D. Cadkin David E. Sipiora (SBN 124951) dsipiora@kilpatricktownsend.com Daniel S. Young (pro hac vice) dyoung@kilpatricktownsend.com John D. Cadkin (pro hac vice) jcadkin@kilpatricktownsend.com 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 571-4000 Facsimile: (303) 571-4321 Robert John Artuz (SBN 227789) rartuz@kilpatricktownsend.com 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 326-2400 Facsimile: (650) 326-2422
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

5

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document130 Filed01/04/13 Page7 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Attorneys for LSI CORPORATION K&L GATES LLP By: /s/ Elaine Y. Chow Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196) mike.bettinger@klgates.com Stephen M. Everett (SBN 121619) stephen.everett@klgates.com Curt Holbreich (SBN 168053) curt.holbreich@klgates.com Elaine Y. Chow (SBN 194063) elaine.chow@klgates.com Deirdre M. Digrande (SBN 199766) Deirdre.digrande@klgates.com Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 882-8200 Fax: (415) 882-8220 Attorneys for STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. and STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

Filer’s Attestation I, John D. Cadkin, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to

18 file this JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER. In compliance with General Order 19 45.X.B., I hereby attest that the above-named signatories concur in this filing. 20 21 DATED: January 4, 2013 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

/s/ John D. Cadkin

6

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)//-->