From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Mar 15, 2013
Case No. 4:12-cv-05967 PJH (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 4:12-cv-05967 PJH

03-15-2013

PERFECT SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, INC., Plaintiff, v. OLYMPUS AMERICA INC., GYRUS MEDICAL, INC., AND GYRUS ACMI, L.P., Defendants.

FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP Robert E. Freitas Qudus B. Olaniran Ken K. Fung Attorneys for Plaintiff Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP Deborah E. Fishman Katie J.L. Scott DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP Steven I. Weisburd Robert E. Bugg DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP Attorneys for Defendants OLYMPUS AMERICA INC. GYRUS MEDICAL, INC. GYRUS ACMI, L.P.


ROBERT E. FREITAS (SBN 80948)

rfreitas@ftklaw.com
QUDUS B. OLANIRAN (SBN 267838)

qolaniran@ftklaw.com
KEN K. FUNG (SBN 283854)

kfung@ftklaw.com
FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 593-6300
Facsimile: (650) 593-6301
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc.
Deborah E. Fishman (SBN 197584)

FishmanD@dicksteinshapiro.com
Katie J.L. Scott (SBN 233171)

ScottK@dicksteinshapiro.com
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 150
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 690-9500
Facsimile: (650) 690-9501
Steven I. Weisburd (pro hac vice)

WeisburdS@dicksteinshapiro.com
Robert E. Bugg (pro hac vice)

BuggR@dicksteinshapiro.com
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 277-6500
Facsimile: (212) 277-6501
Attorneys for Defendants
OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.
GYRUS MEDICAL, INC.
GYRUS ACMI, L.P.

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING

PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND ORDER


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to the Court's March 8, 2013 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference (Dkt. No. 45), the Parties to the above-titled action submit this joint stipulation amending Sections 5 and 17 of their Joint Case Management Statement (Dkt. No. 43).

5. Amendment of Pleadings, Addition of Parties, Etc.

The Parties agree that the last day to amend pleadings or add parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) will be 90 days before close of fact discovery. Both Parties agree that the Parties may amend the pleadings only upon a showing of good cause after the deadline to amend the pleadings has passed.

17. Scheduling

The Parties submit the following proposed schedule:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Event ¦Date per rule or order ¦Agreed Dates ¦ +-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Rule 26(a)(1) Initial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦March 15, 2013¦ ¦Disclosures ¦ ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 3-1. Disclosure of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Asserted Claims and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Infringement Contentions ¦Not later than 14 days after ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Initial Case Management ¦March 22, 2013¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 3-2. Document ¦Conference ¦ ¦ ¦Production Accompanying ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Disclosure ¦ ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 3-3. Invalidity ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Contentions ¦Not later than 45 days after ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦service upon it of the ¦May 10, 2013 ¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 3-4. Document ¦"Disclosure of Asserted Claims¦ ¦ ¦Production Accompanying ¦and Infringement Contentions" ¦ ¦ ¦Invalidity Contentions. ¦ ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-1. Exchange of ¦Not later than 14 days after ¦ ¦ ¦Proposed Terms for ¦service of the "Invalidity ¦May 22, 2013 ¦ ¦Construction. ¦Contentions" pursuant to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Patent L.R. 3-3 ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Deadline to complete Early ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Neutral Evaluation (proposed by¦ ¦May 24, 2013 ¦ ¦Defendants) ¦ ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Mediation (remove only by ¦ ¦June 7, 2013 ¦ ¦agreement of all parties) ¦ ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Deadline for Parties to submit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦joint statement regarding ¦ ¦None ¦ ¦status of ADR, and to inform ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the court whether issues have ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Event ¦Date per rule or order ¦Agreed Dates ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦June 28, 2013 (except expert¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosures) ¦ ¦been narrowed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Not later than 21 days ¦July 12, 2013 (expert ¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-2. Exchange¦after the exchange of ¦ ¦ ¦of Preliminary Claim ¦the lists pursuant to ¦disclosures - including, ¦ ¦Constructions and ¦Patent L.R. 4-1 ¦which terms will be opined ¦ ¦Extrinsic Evidence. ¦ ¦on and a good-faith ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦description of the substance¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of the expert's testimony) ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦Last day to join ¦ ¦TBD - 90 days before close ¦ ¦parties or amend ¦ ¦of fact discovery ¦ ¦pleadings ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-3. Joint ¦Not later than 60 days ¦ ¦ ¦Claim Construction and ¦after service of the ¦July 19, 2013 ¦ ¦Prehearing Statement. ¦"Invalidity ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Contentions," ¦ ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Delayed until reply brief ¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-4. ¦ ¦deadline. Expert ¦ ¦Completion of Claim ¦ ¦declarations, if any, are to¦ ¦Construction Discovery ¦Not later than 30 days ¦be filed with PST's opening ¦ ¦(including depositions ¦after service and filing¦brief or Defendants' ¦ ¦of experts who ¦of the Joint Claim ¦responsive brief. The ¦ ¦submitted declarations ¦Construction and ¦parties agree to make any ¦ ¦in support of claim ¦Prehearing Statement, ¦expert available for ¦ ¦construction positions)¦ ¦deposition the week after ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the expert's declaration is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed. ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Not later than 45 days ¦ ¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-5(a). Claim¦after serving and filing¦Aug. 2, 2013 (including any ¦ ¦Construction Briefs - ¦the Joint Claim ¦expert declaration) ¦ ¦opening brief ¦Construction and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Prehearing Statement ¦ ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-5(b). Claim¦Not later than 14 days ¦Aug. 23, 2013 (including any¦ ¦Construction Briefs ¦after service of an ¦expert declaration) ¦ ¦-responsive brief ¦opening brief ¦ ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sept. 6, 2013 (including any¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-5(c). Claim¦Not later than 7 days ¦rebuttal expert declaration ¦ ¦Construction Briefs - ¦after service of a ¦to the extent the responsive¦ ¦reply brief ¦responsive brief ¦expert declaration includes ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦new or undisclosed opinions)¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Per Judge Hamilton's ¦Sept. 13, 2013, or other ¦ ¦Technology Tutorial ¦Standing Order for ¦such day that is convenient ¦ ¦ ¦Patent Cases ¦for the Court. ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Subject to the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦convenience of the ¦ ¦ ¦Pat. L.R. 4-6. Claim ¦Court's calendar, two ¦September 25, 2013 or other ¦ ¦Construction Hearing. ¦weeks following ¦such day that is convenient ¦ ¦ ¦submission of the reply ¦for the Court. ¦ ¦ ¦brief specified in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Patent L.R. 4-5(c) ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Respectfully submitted,

FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP

By:________________

Robert E. Freitas

Qudus B. Olaniran

Ken K. Fung

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc.

Respectfully submitted,

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

By:________________

Deborah E. Fishman

Katie J.L. Scott

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

Steven I. Weisburd

Robert E. Bugg

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.

GYRUS MEDICAL, INC.

GYRUS ACMI, L.P.

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE

I, Qudus B. Olaniran, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Joint Stipulation Regarding Proposed Schedule. I attest that, pursuant to United States District Court, Northern District of California Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3) and General Order 45, concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Counsel for Defendants Olympus America, Inc., Gyrus Medical, Inc. and Gyrus ACMI L.P.. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

________________

Qudus B. Olaniran

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton


Summaries of

Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Mar 15, 2013
Case No. 4:12-cv-05967 PJH (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PERFECT SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, INC., Plaintiff, v. OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Mar 15, 2013

Citations

Case No. 4:12-cv-05967 PJH (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)