STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report filed on July 12, 2012, the court makes the following orders in this patent case:
All named defendants have been served and no further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.
II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS
Defendant may seek to amend its pleading to incorporate an allegation of inequitable conduct.
No joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See FED.R.CIV. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).
Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.
The parties have exchanged initial disclosures. The parties have also reached several agreements regarding the procedures applicable to discovery, which the court approves. The deadline for the conclusion of fact discovery is February 10, 2013. In this context, "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court.
The parties shall disclose their experts by November 2, 2012.
The initial exchange of expert reports from the party having the burden of proof shall be completed by March 15, 2013, with rebuttal reports exchanged by April 19, 2013. The written reports shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial. An expert witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the court and opposing counsel ...