ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. Plaintiff,
PALM, INC., and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Defendants.
MARTIN L. FINEMAN, California State Bar No. 104413, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, San Francisco, California, RAYMOND P. NIRO (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), DEAN D. NIRO (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), PATRICK F. SOLON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), RICHARD B. MEGLEY, JR. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), JOSEPH A. CULIG (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), NIRO, HALLER & NIRO, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Plaintiff ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303), Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128), Christine Duh (SBN 228544), WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Palo Alto, California, Attorneys for Defendants PALM, INC. and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
The parties to this action-plaintiff ADC Technology, Inc. ("ADC") and defendants Palm, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (collectively, "Palm")-respectfully submit this stipulation, requesting that the Court continue the Case Management Conference previously scheduled in this action for September 19, 2013 to a date in November 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court.
Good cause exists for this requested continuance of the Case Management Conference, as set forth below:
▪ This is a patent case in which the plaintiff, ADC, asserts three patents-namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 985, 136 (the "'136 patent"), 7, 057, 605 (the "'605 patent") and 7, 567, 361 (the "'361 patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit").
▪ In mid-2011, pursuant to a third-party request, the PTO ordered reexamination of each of the three patents-in-suit.
▪ In July 2011, defendant Palm filed a stipulated motion to stay this case pending final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit by the PTO. ( See Docket No. 68.) Plaintiff ADC stipulated to this stay motion. ( Id. )
▪ On July 25, 2011, the Court granted the stipulated stay motion and ordered that "[t]his action is stayed pending final determination of the reexamination of the patents-in-suit" by the PTO. ( See Docket No. 70.) In its order, the Court instructed the parties to advise the Court when the PTO has issued a final determination on reexamination. ( Id. ) In addition, the Court set a case management conference for May 11, 2012, which was subsequently re-set for May 18, 2012. ( Id. )
▪ In May and September, 2012 and in January and May, 2013, defendant Palm and plaintiff ADC filed stipulations requesting continuance of the case management conference, noting that there has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit and indicating agreement that a continued stay in this action was appropriate. ( See Docket Nos. 72, 74, 77. ) The Court granted the stipulated requests and re-set the case management conference, which is currently set for September 19, 2013. ( See Docket No. 73, 75, 78, 81. )
▪ To date, there has not yet been a final determination of the reexamination of all of the patents-in-suit. Although the PTO has issued a reexamination certificate for the '136 patent in December 2011, the reexamination proceedings that the PTO initiated in mid-2011 on the 605 and 361 patents remain ongoing. The PTO had initiated additional reexamination proceedings on the 136, 361, and 605 patents in July, November, and December 2012, respectively. However, ADC represents that all of those additional reexamination proceedings are in the process of being dismissed and, upon dismissal, there will be no reexaminations proceedings pending with respect to the 136 patent.
▪ Recently, ADC and Palm have engaged in more serious discussions in order to try and resolve the dispute. The parties believe they need additional time to fully exhaust reasonable efforts to settle the case.
▪ The parties presently agree that the Case Management Conference should be continued to a date in November 2013, or an alternative future date that is convenient to the Court in view of the pending reexaminations on the 605 and 361 patents and to allow the parties some brief additional time to try and settle the case without burdening the Court. The parties further agree that if any of the reexaminations are completed before the rescheduled Case Management Conference, either party may file a motion to have the stay lifted, and the other party may oppose the motion.
In view of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Case Management Conference previously set for September 19, 2013, be continued to a date in November 2013, or an ...