Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01934/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01934-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NELLCOR PURITAN BENNETT, INC, et

al,

Plaintiffs,

v

SMITHS MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL LTD,

et al,

Defendants. /

No C-04-1934 VRW

ORDER

On December 2, 2005, the court adopted various

deadlines/hearing dates as proposed by the parties in their

supplemental joint case management statement. Doc #91. The court

did not address a dispute described in the statement’s sections

11(a)-(b), in which plaintiffs proposed: (1) that the deadline for

final infringement contentions be extended to April 25, 2006,

“after plaintiffs obtain certain basic discovery from defendants;”

and (2) that the deadline for final invalidity contentions be

extended to May 15, 2006. Defendants opposed both requests,

arguing that the court should enforce the deadlines set by Patent L

R 3-6. That rule provides that after the court has served its

Case 3:04-cv-01934-VRW Document 92 Filed 01/06/06 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

claim construction order, the parties have 30 days to serve their

final infringement contentions and 50 days to serve their final

invalidity contentions. Any other amendment or modification of

infringement or invalidity contentions may be made only by order of

the court upon a showing of good cause. Patent L R 3-7.

In this case, the claim construction order was served on

May 21, 2005. Accordingly, plaintiffs are seeking an extension of

nearly one year for both their final infringement and final

invalidity contentions. Plaintiffs have not shown good cause, as

required by Patent L R 3-7, to justify an extension of this length. 

Although plaintiffs assert that they need certain basic discovery

before serving their final infringement contentions, plaintiffs do

not describe what this discovery is, or why this lengthy extension

is necessary. Moreover, plaintiffs do not provide any reason for

seeking an extension for filing their final invalidity contentions. 

Accordingly, the court declines to extend either deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01934-VRW Document 92 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2