Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LTD.,

Plaintiff, No. C 03-1604 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART 

 RHS, INC., et al., ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

TO ENLARGE TIME

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is defendants’ motion to enlarge time for expert reports, expert

discovery, and dispositive motions. Defendants seek to extend the current discovery, case

management, and even trial date(s) by several weeks, arguing that in view of the court’s

prior order continuing until May 9 the hearing on the parties’ joint claim construction, the

parties and their experts need additional time in order to review and assimilate any claim

construction ruling. Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion. It asserts that no good cause

exists for the extension, since none of the prior discovery orders in effect provided either

side with the benefit of a claim construction ruling before the exchange of expert reports or

the filing of dispositive motions. In addition, plaintiff argues that defendants have failed to

demonstrate that non-compliance with expert discovery or the filing of dispositive motions

will occur notwithstanding defendants’ diligence in complying, or that defendants diligently

sought to amend the present discovery schedule beforehand. For the reasons below, the

court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion in part, and DENIES the motion in part. 

First, irrespective of whether they have made an appropriate showing of good cause,

defendants have raised case management issues that give the court concern. Specifically,

the court is concerned over its ability to provide the parties with an order on claim

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 211 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

construction in sufficient time for both parties to meaningfully incorporate the court’s ruling

for purposes of filing dispositive motions. Both parties should have the greatest amount of

information available to them prior to filing dispositive motions. As such, and given that the

court unilaterally continued the hearing on the parties’ joint claim construction, the court is

amenable to revising the current case management schedule, so that both sides may have

the ability to present fully developed and comprehensive arguments for summary

adjudication and/or judgment. For this reason, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion. 

Second, and notwithstanding the above, the court is not convinced that defendants’

proposed schedule – as set forth in the instant administrative motion – is either appropriate

or warranted. To the extent, therefore, that defendants seek to have the court adopt their

proposed case management schedule, the court DENIES the instant motion. 

In order to address the issue and determine an appropriate schedule, the parties are

ORDERED to attend a further case management conference. The case management

conference will take place on May 3, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor,

Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The parties are

instructed to meet and confer in advance of the case management conference, and to

attempt agreement upon a mutually acceptable case management schedule that (1) gives

the court a reasonable amount of time to issue its claim construction order prior to the

deadline for filing dispositive motions; and (2) anticipates a continued October 15, 2007 trial

date, with pretrial preparation to commence in mid-August. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 211 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 2