From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ADC Tech., Inc. v. Palm, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 13, 2013
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC (N.D. Cal. May. 13, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC

05-13-2013

ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. Plaintiff, v. PALM, INC., and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Defendants.

Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303) Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128) Christine Duh (SBN 228544) Anna T. Lee (SBN 244961) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP Attorneys for Defendants PALM, INC. and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY


Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303)
Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128)
Christine Duh (SBN 228544)
Anna T. Lee (SBN 244961)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
PALM, INC. and
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE

OF MAY 16, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE


Civil L.R. 7-12

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 May 16, 2013 to a date in September 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 and September 2012 and in January 2013, defendant Palm and plaintiff ADC filed stipulations requesting continuance of the case management conference, 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 Nos. 72, 74, 77.) The Court granted the stipulated requests and re-set the case management conference, which is currently set for May 16, 2013. (See Docket No. 73, 75, 78.) ¦ To date, 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 September 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 May 16, 2013 be continued to a date in September 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.

______________________

Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303)

mark.flanagan@wilmerhale.com

Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128)

nathan.walker @wilmerhale.com

Christine Duh (SBN 228544)

christine.duh@wilmerhale.com

Anna T. Lee (SBN 244961)

anna.lee @wilmerhale.com

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP

950 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

Telephone: (650) 858-6000

Facsimile: (650) 858-6101

Attorneys for Defendants

PALM, INC. and

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

______________________

Raymond P. Niro (pro hac vice)

Dean D. Niro (pro hac vice)

Patrick F. Solon (pro hac vice)

Richard B. Megley, Jr. (pro hac vice)

Joseph A. Culig (pro hac vice)

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

181 West Madison, Suite 4600

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: (312) 236-0733

Facsimile: (312) 236-3137

Martin L. Fineman, (SBN 104413)

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

505 Montgomery St., Suite 800

San Francisco, California 94111-6533

Telephone: (415) 276-6500

Facsimile: (415) 276-6599

ATTORNEYS for Plaintiff

ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Case Management Conference previously set for May 16, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. is hereby continued to September 12, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by September 5, 2013.

______________________

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

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.

Executed on May 7, 2013, in Palo Alto, California.

By ______________________

Nathan L. Walker


Summaries of

ADC Tech., Inc. v. Palm, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 13, 2013
Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC (N.D. Cal. May. 13, 2013)
Case details for

ADC Tech., Inc. v. Palm, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. Plaintiff, v. PALM, INC., and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: May 13, 2013

Citations

Case No. 3:11-cv-02136-EMC (N.D. Cal. May. 13, 2013)