From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SoftVault Sys., Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 22, 2013
Case No. 5:12-cv-05541-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 5:12-cv-05541-LHK

03-22-2013

SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NOVELL, INC., Defendant.

Sterling A. Brennan (CA Bar No. 126019) L. Rex Sears (Admitted Pro Hac Vice ) MASCHOFF BRENNAN Counsel for Defendant NOVELL, INC. Jonathan T. Suder Corby R. Vowell Todd I. Blumenfeld FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE Corby R. Vowell Attorneys for Plaintiff SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC.


Sterling A. Brennan (CA Bar No. 126019)
L. Rex Sears (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
MASCHOFF BRENNAN
Counsel for Defendant
NOVELL, INC.

STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE,

PROPOSED ORDER, AND DECLARATION OF COUNS EL


STIPULATED MOTION

On February 4, 2013, the Court entered its "Minute Order and Case Management Order" ("Scheduling Order," ECF No. 23) in the above-captioned action ("Action") and in two companion actions: SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Case No. 12-CV-5544 LHK ("RIM Action") and SoftVault Systems, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Case No. 12-CV-5546 LHK ("IBM Action"). The RIM Action has since settled and been dismissed.

Also on February 4, 2013, the Court set "Defendant Novell, Inc.'s Motion to: (1) Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and (2) Transfer to Utah to Cure Defects in Personal Jurisdiction and Venue" ("Motion to Dismiss," ECF No. 15) for hearing on May 9, 2013. By its Motion to Dismiss, defendant Novell, Inc. ("Novell") seeks to have the "Complaint for Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,868 and 6,594,765" ("Complaint") of plaintiff SoftVault Systems, Inc. ("SoftVault") dismissed and the Action transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah ("Utah Court"). Although SoftVault does not concede that Novell's Motion to Dismiss has any merit, SoftVault has agreed to join Novell in a request that the Court continue certain deadlines imposed by the Scheduling Order until after the Court hears and decides Novell's Motion to Dismiss. Hence this stipulated motion.

Specifically, Novell and SoftVault move the Court to modify the Scheduling Order as set forth in the following table:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Event ¦Scheduling ¦Proposed ¦ ¦ ¦Order ¦Schedule ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Last day to amend pleadings ¦April 18, ¦May 30, ¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Invalidity contentions and accompanying document ¦April 18, ¦May 30, ¦ ¦production (Patent L.R. 3-3, 3-4) ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Exchange of proposed terms for construction (Patent ¦May 2, 2013¦June 6, ¦ ¦L.R. 4-1) ¦ ¦2013 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Exchange of preliminary claim constructions and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦extrinsic ¦May 23, ¦June 20, ¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ ¦evidence (Patent L.R. 4-2) ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Joint claim construction and prehearing statement ¦June 20, ¦July 3, ¦ ¦(Patent L.R. 4-3) ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Completion of claim construction discovery (Patent ¦July 11, ¦July 18, ¦ ¦L.R. 4-4) ¦2013 ¦2013 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Opening claim construction brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(a))¦July 25, ¦No change ¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Opposing claim construction brief (Patent L.R. 4-5 ¦August 15, ¦No change ¦ ¦(b)) ¦2013 ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Reply claim construction brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(c)) ¦August 23, ¦No change ¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Technology tutorial ¦September ¦No change ¦ ¦ ¦12, 2013 ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------¦ ¦Claim construction hearing (Patent L.R. 4-6) ¦September ¦No change ¦ ¦ ¦19, 2013 ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The proposed modifications do not affect Court proceedings in this Action that are presently coordinated with the IBM Action, or reduce the time available to the Court to review materials before the claim construction hearing. More specifically, the proposed modifications do not affect the technology tutorial and claim construction hearing dates, which will remain coordinated with the corresponding dates in the IBM Action; and the proposed modifications do not reduce the time between the conclusion of claim construction briefing and the claim construction hearing.

Accordingly, Novell and SoftVault, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court enter an order modifying the schedule as set forth above. Undersigned counsel for Novell attests that he has obtained the concurrence of below-identified counsel for SoftVault in the filing of this document.

Jonathan T. Suder

Corby R. Vowell

Todd I. Blumenfeld FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE

By: Corby R. Vowell

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC.

Sterling A. Brennan

L. Rex Sears

MASCHOFF BRENNAN

By: L. Rex Sears

Attorneys for Defendant

NOVELL, INC.

[Proposed] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

Lucy H. Koh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), Novell's undersigned counsel declares, under penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America (and using terms as defined in the foregoing "Stipulated Motion to Modify Schedule" ["Motion to Modify"]), that:

1. The reasons for seeking the continuances request by the Motion to Modify are twofold. First, because Novell's Motion to Dismiss may result in this Action being transferred to the Utah Court, which does not share this Court's Local Patent Rules, Novell desires to have its Motion to Dismiss decided before Novell is required to comply with deadlines and requirements imposed by this Court's Patent Local Rules. Second, Novell is negotiating terms with an indemnitor, and it would be best for all concerned—SoftVault, Novell, and the indemnitor—if those negotiations were concluded in advance of extensive substantive engagement with the issues. 2. There have been no previous time modifications in the Action. 3. The modifications requested by the Motion to Modify will not affect the schedule for the Action other than as set forth in the Motion to Modify. Specifically, although the deadline to amend pleadings would be continued, as would various deadlines falling before opposition claim construction briefs under Patent Local Rules 4-5(b) and 4-5(c), those continuances would not affect subsequent events.

L. Rex Sears


Summaries of

SoftVault Sys., Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 22, 2013
Case No. 5:12-cv-05541-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013)
Case details for

SoftVault Sys., Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SOFTVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NOVELL, INC., Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 22, 2013

Citations

Case No. 5:12-cv-05541-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013)