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.

Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 29, 2013

GOLDEN BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC., Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

RODERICK G. DORMAN (SBN 96908), LAWRENCE M. HADLEY (SBN 1577228), MIEKE K. MALMBERG (SBN 209992), JEFFREY HUANG (SBN 266774), MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C., Los Angeles. California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, GOLDEN BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

TIMOTHY S. TETER, LOWELL D. MEAD, COOLEYLLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendant APPLE, INC.

JOINT STIPULATION BASED ON NEED TO EXTEND ALL CASE DEADLINES BY APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, plaintiff Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. and defendant Apple Inc. jointly stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, to extend all deadlines in the current case schedule by approximately 60 days. The current schedule, as ordered by the Court, is set forth in the Order Granting (As Modified) Supplemental Joint Case Management Conference Statement [Docket No. 265]. The parties have observed and met those dates through the event: "Fact Discovery Cut-Off." The parties have worked together cooperatively with each other and with third parties to obtain third-party discovery efficiently and with limited disruption to non-parties. However, the parties have been unable to complete fact discovery by the currently existing fact discovery cut-off date due to events and delays beyond their control, and due to the parties' mutual desire to work cooperatively with third parties in obtaining documents that GBT and/or Apple view as highly relevant to the liability and damage issues in this action. More specifically, the reasons that have required this stipulation and extension of dates are the following:

(1) The Apple products accused of infringement use chip sets designed and manufactured by Qualcomm and Intel, third parties to this case. Information concerning the technological specifics of those chip sets, and information concerning precisely how they operate, is potentially among the most relevant factual information in this case, and such information is largely in the exclusive possession of third parties. That information includes source code. GBT served subpoenas on Qualcomm and Intel and has been working with them concerning the nature and amount of information to be provided, the required confidentiality protections for that information, the manner in which such information and source code will be produced and must be reviewed, and the identity of the party experts who the third parties will permit to examine the confidential information. GBT has requested, and Apple has agreed, that production of this information precede certain depositions which cannot be completed until the necessary permissions are obtained. GBT has also requested, and Apple has agreed, that those fact depositions be completed before infringement and non-infringement expert reports are prepared.

(2) Licensing information in the possession of both Apple and GBT may be highly relevant to a determination of reasonable royalty damages in this case. Without waiving any argument regarding whether any particular license is comparable or otherwise relevant or admissible, both GBT and Apple have requested licenses from each other, and both GBT and Apple have agreed to produce such licenses. However, although such licenses are in the possession of Apple and GBT, certain of those licenses cannot be produced in discovery at this time because they contractually obligate a licensed party to notify and receive the consent of the contracting party before production of the license in litigation. Requests for permission to disclose these necessary documents were made by Apple and GBT in a timely manner, but third party consent for certain productions has been delayed due to lengthy foreign summer vacation schedules and other conflicts. The parties in this action continue to diligently work towards obtaining the proper permissions and producing this limited, but potentially important set of documents, to one another. The parties agree that production of this information, which cannot be completed until the necessary permissions are obtained, should precede certain fact depositions, and that those fact depositions should be completed before damage expert reports are prepared.

For these reasons the parties respectfully request the Court to order the changes to the Case Management Order set forth below. Commencing with the event "Fact Discovery Cut Off', the proposed new dates move all remaining dates for the entire schedule by approximately 60 days, with certain minor additional adjustments. For example, Apple and GBT both agree that initial infringement expert reports should precede by at least a week initial damage reports, since any facts relating to the functionality of the accused devices, performance or reliability improvements of the patented technology over the prior art, and potential "design arounds" may be relevant to the reasonable royalty damages expert reports. Additionally, the expert discovery cut-off has been adjusted outward slightly to assure that expert depositions need not occur during the holidays.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE

Event Previously Agreed Date New Agreed-Upon Date [Qocket No. 265] Fact discovery cut-off [however, August 16, 2013 October 25, 2013 no additional written discovery may be propounded between the parties] Expert Reports on which the party August 30, 2013 November 8, 2013 bears the burden of proof other than Damages (e.g., Infringement (GBT) and Invalidity (Apple)) Expert Report on Damages (GBT) Not included in previous November 15, 2013 schedule as separate date. Rebuttal expert reports on non-infringement Not included in previous December 6, 2013 (Apple) and Rebuttal schedule as separate date. Report on Validity (GBT) Rebuttal Report on Damages Not included in previous December 13, 2013 (Apple) schedule as separate date. Expert discovery cut-off October 18, 2013 January 10, 2014 Deadline to file dispositive motions November 1, 2013 January 17, 2014 Due date for oppositions to November 22, 2013 February 7, 2014

dispositive motions filed on motion cut-off date Due date for replies in support of December 6, 2013 February 13, 2014 dispositive motions filed on motion cut-off date Proposed hearing date for December 17, 2013 at 10 March 4, 2014, or at the dispositive motions AM convenience of the Court. Final date to submit witness lists January 14, 2014 April 1, 2014 and exhibit lists pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) May 6 at 10:00 AM Pre-trial conference January 21, 2014 at 2:00 April 8, 2014 at 2:00p.m., or PM at the convenience of the Court May 6 Final date to file objections January 21, 2014 April 8, 2014 pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) May 19 Proposed trial date February 10, 2014 at 9:30 April 28, 2014 at 9:30a.m. or

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, this stipulation is accompanied by the declaration of Roderick G. Dorman submitted herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED (AS MODIFIED).


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.