1963
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 1963 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,258
- Pages: 5
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 1 of 5
1 E-filed:
2
7/16/2008
3 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7 8 RAMBUS INC.,
No. C-05-00334 RMW
9 Plaintiff,
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
v.
[Re Docket No. 1950]
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A., Defendants.
19 20
RAMBUS INC.,
No. C-05-02298 RMW
21 Plaintiff, 22 v. 23 24 25
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,
26 Defendants. 27 28 PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
[Re Docket No. 955]
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 2 of 5
1 RAMBUS INC.,
No. C-06-00244 RMW
2 Plaintiff,
[Re Docket No. 1391]
3 v. 4 5
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
6 Defendants. 7 8 9
11 For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Having considered the comments and proposals presented by the parties in their July 9 joint case management statement, the court provides the following case management order. A.
Schedule for the Patent Trial
Case Milestone
Rambus's Proposal
Manufacturers' Proposal
Court's Order
Final Infringement Contentions.
July 25, 2008
August 11, 2008
August 1, 2008
Final Invalidity Contentions.
August 11, 2008
September 2, 2008
August 22, 2008
14 15
Close of fact discovery.
August 15, 2008
September 8, 2008
August 29, 2008
16
Opening expert reports (on all issues as to which a party bears the burden of proof).
August 11, 2008
September 19, 2008
September 5, 20081
18
Rebuttal expert reports.
September 10, 2008
October 3, 2008
September 26, 2008
19
Close of expert discovery.
September 26, 2008
October 17, 2008
October 10, 2008
20
Last day to file dispositive motions and Daubert motions.
October 3, 2008
October 24, 2008
October 17, 2008
Last day to file oppositions to dispositive motions and Daubert motions.
October 17, 2008
November 7, 2008
October 31, 2008
Last day to file replies to dispositive motions and Daubert motions.
October 24, 2008
November 14, 2008
November 7, 2008
12 13
17
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
The court expects that the Manufacturers will have significantly narrowed the number of prior art references supporting their invalidity contentions. PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
2
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
8
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 3 of 5
Hearing on dispositive motions.
November 7, 2008
December 5, 2008
November 21, 2008
Last day to file motions in limine.
(none)
(none)
November 26, 2008
Last day to file oppositions to motions in limine.
(none)
(none)
December 5, 2008
Last day to file replies to motions in limine.
(none)
(none)
December 10, 2008
Pretrial conference.
December 12, 2008
January 5, 2009
December 19, 2008
Start of trial.
January 19, 2009
(none)
January 19, 2008
9
Given these cases' histories, a few deadlines may require clarification. A "dispositive
10
motion" is a motion for summary judgment that disposes of a portion of the case. The court will not
11
entertain any dispositive motion that turns on an issue of claim construction. Such motions were
12
supposed to be filed on October 5, 2007. See Joint Case Management Order, Attachment C (Apr.
13
24, 2007). A "Daubert motion" is any motion based on the reliability of any expert testimony. A
14
"Daubert motion" is not a motion in limine that merely challenges the relevance of an expert's
15
testimony.
16
The parties have previously encountered difficulties with the procedure surrounding expert
17
reports, yet have retained the same mechanism for exchanging expert reports. To be clear, this
18
mechanism will require the Manufacturers to produce their expert reports related to invalidity on
19
September 5 while Rambus will have to produce its expert reports on infringement and damages on
20
September 5. The parties are encouraged to reach an agreement regarding the anticipated scope of
21
the inventors' testimony and what, if any, disclosure obligations that testimony will entail.
22 23
This schedule proceeds on the expectation of holding a consolidated trial. If a Manufacturer has good cause for severance, it must file a motion requesting severance by August 1, 2008.
24 25 26
DATED:
7/16/2008 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge
27 28 PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
3
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 4 of 5
Notice of this document has been electronically sent to counsel in: C-05-00334, C-05-02298, C-06-00244. Counsel for Rambus Inc., all actions
Counsel for Hynix entities, C-00-20905 and C-05-00334
Burton Alexander Gross
[email protected]
Allen Ruby
[email protected]
Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke
[email protected]
Belinda Martinez Vega
[email protected]
5 6
Catherine Rajwani
[email protected]
Daniel J. Furniss
[email protected]
7
Craig N. Tolliver
[email protected]
Geoffrey Hurndall Yost
[email protected]
David C. Yang
[email protected]
Jordan Trent Jones
[email protected]
Douglas A. Cawley
[email protected]
Joseph A. Greco
[email protected]
Erin C. Dougherty
[email protected]
Kenneth Lee Nissly
[email protected]
Gregory P. Stone
[email protected]
Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke
[email protected]
Jennifer Lynn Polse
[email protected]
Patrick Lynch
[email protected]
Keith Rhoderic Dhu Hamilton, II
[email protected]
Susan Gregory VanKeulen
[email protected]
13 14
Kelly Max Klaus
[email protected]
Theodore G. Brown, III
[email protected]
15
Miriam Kim
[email protected]
Tomomi Katherine Harkey
[email protected]
16
Peter A. Detre
[email protected]
Counsel for Micron entities, C-06-00244
17
Pierre J. Hubert
[email protected]
Aaron Bennett Craig
[email protected]
18
Rosemarie Theresa Ring
[email protected]
David J. Ruderman
[email protected]
Scott L Cole
[email protected]
Harold Avrum Barza
[email protected]
20
Scott W. Hejny
[email protected]
Jared Bobrow
[email protected]
21
Sean Eskovitz
[email protected]
John D Beynon
[email protected]
22
Steven McCall Perry
[email protected]
Leeron Kalay
[email protected]
Thomas N Tarnay
[email protected]
Linda Jane Brewer
[email protected]
William Hans Baumgartner, Jr
[email protected]
Rachael Lynn Ballard McCracken
[email protected] om
Robert Jason Becher
[email protected]
Yonaton M Rosenzweig
[email protected] m
3 4
8 9
11 For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
19
23 24 25 26 27 28
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
4
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 5 of 5
Counsel for Nanya entities, C-05-00334
Counsel for Samsung entities, C-05-00334 and C-0502298
Chester Wren-Ming Day
[email protected]
Ana Elena Kadala
[email protected]
Craig R. Kaufman
[email protected] m
Claire Elise Goldstein
[email protected]
5
Glenn Michael Levy
[email protected]
David J. Healey
[email protected]
6
Jan Ellen Ellard
[email protected]
Edward Robert Reines
[email protected]
Jason Sheffield Angell
[email protected]
Matthew D. Powers
[email protected]
Kaiwen Tseng
[email protected]
Mark Shean
[email protected]
Robert E. Freitas
[email protected]
Vickie L. Feeman
[email protected]
2 3 4
7 8 9
11 For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Counsel for intervenor, Texas Instruments, Inc., C-05-00334
13
Kelli A. Crouch
14
Counsel for intervenor, United States Department of Justice, C-00-20905
15 16 17
[email protected]
Eugene S. Litvinoff
[email protected]
May Lee Heye
[email protected]
Nathanael M. Cousins
[email protected]
Niall Edmund Lynch
[email protected]
18
Counsel for intervenor, Elpida Memory, Inc., C-00-20905 and C-05-00334
19
Eric R. Lamison
[email protected]
20
John J. Feldhaus
[email protected]
21 22 23
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program in each action. Dated:
TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte
7/16/2008
24 25 26 27 28 PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
5
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 1 of 5
1 E-filed:
2
7/16/2008
3 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7 8 RAMBUS INC.,
No. C-05-00334 RMW
9 Plaintiff,
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
v.
[Re Docket No. 1950]
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A., Defendants.
19 20
RAMBUS INC.,
No. C-05-02298 RMW
21 Plaintiff, 22 v. 23 24 25
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,
26 Defendants. 27 28 PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
[Re Docket No. 955]
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 2 of 5
1 RAMBUS INC.,
No. C-06-00244 RMW
2 Plaintiff,
[Re Docket No. 1391]
3 v. 4 5
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
6 Defendants. 7 8 9
11 For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Having considered the comments and proposals presented by the parties in their July 9 joint case management statement, the court provides the following case management order. A.
Schedule for the Patent Trial
Case Milestone
Rambus's Proposal
Manufacturers' Proposal
Court's Order
Final Infringement Contentions.
July 25, 2008
August 11, 2008
August 1, 2008
Final Invalidity Contentions.
August 11, 2008
September 2, 2008
August 22, 2008
14 15
Close of fact discovery.
August 15, 2008
September 8, 2008
August 29, 2008
16
Opening expert reports (on all issues as to which a party bears the burden of proof).
August 11, 2008
September 19, 2008
September 5, 20081
18
Rebuttal expert reports.
September 10, 2008
October 3, 2008
September 26, 2008
19
Close of expert discovery.
September 26, 2008
October 17, 2008
October 10, 2008
20
Last day to file dispositive motions and Daubert motions.
October 3, 2008
October 24, 2008
October 17, 2008
Last day to file oppositions to dispositive motions and Daubert motions.
October 17, 2008
November 7, 2008
October 31, 2008
Last day to file replies to dispositive motions and Daubert motions.
October 24, 2008
November 14, 2008
November 7, 2008
12 13
17
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
The court expects that the Manufacturers will have significantly narrowed the number of prior art references supporting their invalidity contentions. PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
2
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
8
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 3 of 5
Hearing on dispositive motions.
November 7, 2008
December 5, 2008
November 21, 2008
Last day to file motions in limine.
(none)
(none)
November 26, 2008
Last day to file oppositions to motions in limine.
(none)
(none)
December 5, 2008
Last day to file replies to motions in limine.
(none)
(none)
December 10, 2008
Pretrial conference.
December 12, 2008
January 5, 2009
December 19, 2008
Start of trial.
January 19, 2009
(none)
January 19, 2008
9
Given these cases' histories, a few deadlines may require clarification. A "dispositive
10
motion" is a motion for summary judgment that disposes of a portion of the case. The court will not
11
entertain any dispositive motion that turns on an issue of claim construction. Such motions were
12
supposed to be filed on October 5, 2007. See Joint Case Management Order, Attachment C (Apr.
13
24, 2007). A "Daubert motion" is any motion based on the reliability of any expert testimony. A
14
"Daubert motion" is not a motion in limine that merely challenges the relevance of an expert's
15
testimony.
16
The parties have previously encountered difficulties with the procedure surrounding expert
17
reports, yet have retained the same mechanism for exchanging expert reports. To be clear, this
18
mechanism will require the Manufacturers to produce their expert reports related to invalidity on
19
September 5 while Rambus will have to produce its expert reports on infringement and damages on
20
September 5. The parties are encouraged to reach an agreement regarding the anticipated scope of
21
the inventors' testimony and what, if any, disclosure obligations that testimony will entail.
22 23
This schedule proceeds on the expectation of holding a consolidated trial. If a Manufacturer has good cause for severance, it must file a motion requesting severance by August 1, 2008.
24 25 26
DATED:
7/16/2008 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge
27 28 PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
3
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 4 of 5
Notice of this document has been electronically sent to counsel in: C-05-00334, C-05-02298, C-06-00244. Counsel for Rambus Inc., all actions
Counsel for Hynix entities, C-00-20905 and C-05-00334
Burton Alexander Gross
[email protected]
Allen Ruby
[email protected]
Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke
[email protected]
Belinda Martinez Vega
[email protected]
5 6
Catherine Rajwani
[email protected]
Daniel J. Furniss
[email protected]
7
Craig N. Tolliver
[email protected]
Geoffrey Hurndall Yost
[email protected]
David C. Yang
[email protected]
Jordan Trent Jones
[email protected]
Douglas A. Cawley
[email protected]
Joseph A. Greco
[email protected]
Erin C. Dougherty
[email protected]
Kenneth Lee Nissly
[email protected]
Gregory P. Stone
[email protected]
Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke
[email protected]
Jennifer Lynn Polse
[email protected]
Patrick Lynch
[email protected]
Keith Rhoderic Dhu Hamilton, II
[email protected]
Susan Gregory VanKeulen
[email protected]
13 14
Kelly Max Klaus
[email protected]
Theodore G. Brown, III
[email protected]
15
Miriam Kim
[email protected]
Tomomi Katherine Harkey
[email protected]
16
Peter A. Detre
[email protected]
Counsel for Micron entities, C-06-00244
17
Pierre J. Hubert
[email protected]
Aaron Bennett Craig
[email protected]
18
Rosemarie Theresa Ring
[email protected]
David J. Ruderman
[email protected]
Scott L Cole
[email protected]
Harold Avrum Barza
[email protected]
20
Scott W. Hejny
[email protected]
Jared Bobrow
[email protected]
21
Sean Eskovitz
[email protected]
John D Beynon
[email protected]
22
Steven McCall Perry
[email protected]
Leeron Kalay
[email protected]
Thomas N Tarnay
[email protected]
Linda Jane Brewer
[email protected]
William Hans Baumgartner, Jr
[email protected]
Rachael Lynn Ballard McCracken
[email protected] om
Robert Jason Becher
[email protected]
Yonaton M Rosenzweig
[email protected] m
3 4
8 9
11 For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
19
23 24 25 26 27 28
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
4
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Document 1963
Filed 07/16/2008
Page 5 of 5
Counsel for Nanya entities, C-05-00334
Counsel for Samsung entities, C-05-00334 and C-0502298
Chester Wren-Ming Day
[email protected]
Ana Elena Kadala
[email protected]
Craig R. Kaufman
[email protected] m
Claire Elise Goldstein
[email protected]
5
Glenn Michael Levy
[email protected]
David J. Healey
[email protected]
6
Jan Ellen Ellard
[email protected]
Edward Robert Reines
[email protected]
Jason Sheffield Angell
[email protected]
Matthew D. Powers
[email protected]
Kaiwen Tseng
[email protected]
Mark Shean
[email protected]
Robert E. Freitas
[email protected]
Vickie L. Feeman
[email protected]
2 3 4
7 8 9
11 For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Counsel for intervenor, Texas Instruments, Inc., C-05-00334
13
Kelli A. Crouch
14
Counsel for intervenor, United States Department of Justice, C-00-20905
15 16 17
[email protected]
Eugene S. Litvinoff
[email protected]
May Lee Heye
[email protected]
Nathanael M. Cousins
[email protected]
Niall Edmund Lynch
[email protected]
18
Counsel for intervenor, Elpida Memory, Inc., C-00-20905 and C-05-00334
19
Eric R. Lamison
[email protected]
20
John J. Feldhaus
[email protected]
21 22 23
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program in each action. Dated:
TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte
7/16/2008
24 25 26 27 28 PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW TSF
5
Related Documents
1963
May 2020 11
1963
November 2019 25
1963-09
June 2020 0
1963-02
June 2020 0
Css-1963
May 2020 0
