Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rambus Inc v. International Business Machines Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


July 12, 2011

RAMBUS INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge Northern District of California

Barbara Clarke McCurdy (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) barbara.mccurdy@finnegan.com 2 Naveen Modi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) naveen.modi@finnegan.com 3 Srikala P. Atluri (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) srikala.atluri@finnegan.com 4 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 5 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 6 Telephone: (202) 408-4000 Facsimile: (202) 408-4400 7 Tina E. Hulse (CA Bar No. 232936) 8 tina.hulse@finnegan.com FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 9 GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 3300 Hillview Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 94304-1203 Telephone: (650) 849-6600 11 Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rambus Inc.

STIPULATION RE: CASE SCHEDULE; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF TINA E. HULSE;

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff Rambus Inc. ("Rambus") and Defendant International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"), through their respective counsel of record, 3 respectfully request, and with the Court's permission, stipulate to a one-week extension of certain 4 dates in the current case schedule. Because the parties' settlement negotiations have not progressed, 5 with the last discussion between the parties being just this past Friday on July 8, 2011, a one-week 6 extension is requested of four upcoming deadlines: three under the Patent Local Rules and one under 7 the Court's Standing Order for Patent Cases. By this extension, the parties do not request modifying 8 the previously-ordered briefing schedule for claim construction or the dates for the Court's 9 technology tutorial or claim construction hearing. More specifically, with the Court's permission, 10 the parties hereby stipulate that the current schedule set forth in the June 15, 2011, Stipulated Order

[Dkt. 66] be modified as follows:

EVENT CURRENT SCHEDULE PROPOSED DATE

Exchange of Preliminary Claim July 11, 2011 July 18, 2011 14 Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence (Patent L.R. 4-2(a), 15 (b)) Meet and confer re Joint Claim July 18, 2011 July 25, 2011 Construction and Prehearing Statement (Patent L.R. 4-2(c)) Last day to request leave to July 22, 2011 July 29, 2011 19 designate additional terms for claims construction JSW

Standing Order ¶ 4 21

Joint Claim Construction and August 5, 2011 August 12, 2011 Prehearing Statement (Patent 22

L.R. 4-3) -- Includes Expert 23

Testimony. Parties must attach copies of patents, make 24 available file histories to Court for each involved patent 25

Completion of Claim September 6, 2011 Same 26

Construction Discovery (Patent 27 L.R. 4-3)

EVENT CURRENT SCHEDULE PROPOSED DATE

Rambus Opening Claim September 19, 2011 Same 3

Construction Brief (Patent L.R. 4-5(a)). 25 page limit 4

IBM Responsive Claim October 4, 2011 Same 5

Construction Brief (Patent L.R. 6

4-5(b)). 25 page limit

Rambus - Reply Brief and any October 11, 2011 Same evidence directly rebutting the 8 supporting evidence (Patent

L.R. 4-5(c)). - 15 page limit

Amended Joint Claim

Construction Statement

Tutorial for the Court November 1, 2011 Same Claim Construction November 15, 2011 Same ("Markman") Hearing(Patent L.R. 4-6).

By her signature below, counsel for Plaintiff attests that counsel for Defendant concurs in the filing of this stipulation.

Respectfully submitted,

SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF TINA E. HULSE

* I, TINA E. HULSE, declare as follows:

1. I am an associate at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., counsel 4 for Plaintiff Rambus Inc. ("Rambus"). I submit this declaration in support of the parties' Stipulation 5 Regarding Case Schedule. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and will 6 competently testify thereto if called upon to do so. 7 2. On April 15, 2011, May 12, 2011, and June 15, 2011, the Court entered Stipulated Orders [Dkt. Nos. 60, 62, and 66], which set forth the claim construction briefing schedule for this action.

The June 15, 2011, Stipulated Order [Dkt. 66] also set the technology tutorial for November 1, 2011, 10 at 1:30 p.m. and the Markman Hearing for November 15, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. 11

3. Although the parties had reached a settlement in principle, negotiations have not progressed and the parties are at a standstill. The last discussion between the parties was on Friday, July 8, 2011, at which time the parties agreed to proceed with the case.

4. Under the current schedule, the deadline for the parties to exchange claim constructions and extrinsic evidence is on Monday, July 11. Given this and other requirements of the Patent Local Rules upcoming shortly, the parties seek a continuance of four dates in the case schedule for one 17 week. Three of these dates are under the Patent Local Rules, and one is under the Court's Standing Order for Patent Cases.

5. The Court previously granted the Stipulated Orders to permit settlement discussions.

Otherwise, the only time modification in this case was to change the Case Management Conference 21 from December 3, 2010, to January 14, 2011, to coincide with the hearing on Rambus's motion to 22 dismiss in related case, International Business Machines Corp. v. Rambus Inc., No. C 10-04017 JSW. See Dkt. 48. 24

6. The requested modification in the current case schedule will not affect any other pre-trial deadlines, such as the previously-ordered briefing schedule for claim construction or the dates for 26 the technology tutorial or claim construction hearing, and as the pre-trial schedule has not yet been 27 entered in this case.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct, and this declaration was executed this 11th day of July, 2011.3

Tina E. Hulse

Tina E. Hulse

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July __, 2011

20110712

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.