GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP, ADAM J. GUTRIDE (State Bar No. 181446), SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. 197427), ANTHONY PATEK (State Bar No. 228964), MARIE A. McCRARY (State Bar No. 262670), San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF'S STATUS REPORT
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, District Judge.
Plaintiff Cogent Medicine, Inc. hereby submits its Status Report pursuant to the Court's December 30, 2013 Order. (Dkt. #9).
Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No. 7, 133, 879, entitled "Personalized Library Interface for Providing Data to a User, " duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 7, 2006 (hereinafter, the "Asserted Patent"). The Asserted Patent generally describes and claims a computer-implemented method for providing users with a personal library interface containing medical literature.
Plaintiff was formed in 2000 by the inventors of the Asserted Patent, Dr. Alan Maloney and Dr. Brian Goldsmith, to provide medical professionals access to medical literature in a personalized library interface via its website (http://www.cogentmedicine.com). In 2012, Plaintiff sold its personalized library interface service and website to the American College of Radiology (the "ACR"). The ACR continues to operate the service (https://www.acrjournaladvisor.com/). Plaintiff retains its rights in all its intellectual property, including the Asserted Patent, and Drs. Maloney and Goldsmith continue to control Plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Elsevier, Inc. ("Defendant") has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States at least the MD Consult, First Consult, and Clinical Key products and services, accessible through at least http://www.mdconsult.com, http://firstconsult.com, http://www.clinicalkey.com, and the iOS First Consult mobile application.
II. Status of Case
After Plaintiff filed its complaint on September 27, 2013, the parties engaged in preliminary settlement discussions. On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff sent a Request for Waiver of Service to Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(d)(1). ( See Dkt. #7.) Defendant executed the Waiver of Service and Plaintiff filed the waiver on November 14, 2013. ( Id. ) Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(d)(3), Defendant's deadline to answer the Complaint was originally January 13, 2014. ( Id. )
Thereafter, Defendant engaged litigation counsel. Defendant requested that Plaintiff agree to an extension to Defendant's January 13 deadline to answer the Complaint. Plaintiff agreed to a two-week extension of Defendant's deadline to answer the Complaint. Accordingly, on January 7, 2014, Defendant filed the parties' stipulation to extend Defendant's deadline to answer the Complaint to January 27, 2014. (Dkt. #11.)
III. Next Steps
Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a revised ADR Scheduling Order, resetting the deadline for the parties to file a case management statement to January 31, 2014, and resetting the initial ...