Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05865/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05865-1/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

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

HARVEY SISKIND JACOBS LLP 

D. PETER HARVEY (State Bar No. 55712) 

Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4115 

Telephone: (415) 354-0100 

Facsimile: (415) 391-7124 

BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP 

MARK E. FERGUSON (pro hac vice) 

MARK L. LEVINE (pro hac vice) 

ADAM K. MORTARA (pro hac vice) 

54 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, IL 60610-4697 

Telephone: (312) 494-4400 

Facsimile: (312) 494-4440 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SAFECLICK, LLC 

STANLEY YOUNG (Bar. No. 121180) 

MICHAEL M. MARKMAN (Bar No. 191388) 

HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

275 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506 

Telephone: (650) 324-7000 

Facsimile: (650) 324-0638 

michael.markman@hellerehrman.com 

Attorneys for Defendants VISA U.S.A. INC. and 

VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SAFECLICK, LLC, an Iowa limited liability 

company, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE 

ASSOCIATION., a Delaware corporation, and 

VISA U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C03-05865 SBA ADR

STIPULATION AND 

AMENDED ORDER 

JUDGE: Honorable Saundra B. 

 Armstrong 

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 108 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

1

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

The parties have met and conferred concerning possible revisions to the case 

management schedule, Visa’s anticipated limited motion for summary judgment, and issues 

relating to the scheduling of remaining fact and expert discovery. Pursuant to such discussions, 

the parties jointly propose the following modifications to the case management schedule 

currently in effect (amended dates are noted in bold text): 

Rule Event Explanation of Time 

Interval

Proposed Date

Visa to file its limited 

motion for summary 

judgment of noninfringement (without 

waiver of Visa’s right to 

subsequently file further 

motions for summary 

judgment) 

July 19, 2005 

Safeclick to file its 

opposition to Visa’s 

limited motion for 

summary judgment 

(without waiver of 

Safeclick’s right to make 

a submission pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), 

which if necessary shall 

be filed as soon as 

practicable following 

service of Visa’s motion)

Sufficient time to 

conduct depositions of 

experts and fact 

witnesses submitting 

declarations, if 

necessary 

August 9, 2005 

Visa to file its reply in 

support of Visa’s limited 

motion for summary 

judgment 

Sufficient time to 

conduct depositions of 

experts submitting 

declarations, if 

necessary 

August 26, 2005 

Fact discovery cutoff on 

all issues 

Sept. 1, 2005 

Hearing on Visa’s 

limited motion for 

summary judgment 

Next-available 

hearing date 

Sept. 20, 2005 

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 108 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

2

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

Rule Event Explanation of Time 

Interval

Proposed Date

Opening expert reports 

by parties with burden 

of proof 

Sept. 9, 2005 

Rebuttal expert reports 30 days after opening 

expert reports 

Oct. 8, 2005 

Close of expert discovery 30 days after rebuttal 

expert reports 

Nov. 7, 2005 

Last day to file 

dispositive motions 

35 days before last 

day to hear dispositive 

motions 

Nov. 8, 2005 

Standing order Parties meet and confer re 

pretrial conference 

41 days before pretrial 

conference 

Nov. 29, 2005 

Opposition briefs to 

dispositive motions filed 

on deadline 

21 days before last 

day to hear dispositive 

motions 

Nov. 22, 2005 

Standing order Parties file joint pretrial 

statement 

35 days before pretrial 

conference 

Dec. 5, 2005 

Reply briefs re 

dispositive motions filed 

on deadline 

14 days before last 

day to hear dispositive 

motions 

Nov. 29, 2005 

Standing order Parties file motions in 

limine and objections to 

evidence 

28 days before pretrial 

conference 

Dec. 12, 2005 

Standing order Parties file responses to 

motions in limine and 

objections to evidence 

21 days before pretrial 

conference 

Dec. 19, 2005 

March 15, 

2005 Order of 

Magistrate 

Judge Chen 

Final mandatory 

settlement conference (to 

be set by Magistrate 

Judge) 

 Pursuant to 

Magistrate 

Judge Chen’s 

order, settlement 

conference to be 

held on August 

5, 2005. Further 

conferences may 

be schedule as 

appropriate. 

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 108 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

3

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

Rule Event Explanation of Time 

Interval

Proposed Date

Last day to hear 

dispositive motions 

Dec. 13, 2005 

Prior order Pretrial conference Jan. 10, 2006 

Prior order Trial (7-8 trial days)1 Jan. 23, 2006 

The parties do not propose any other modifications to the existing Case Management 

Order. 

Dated: June 24, 2005 /s/ Michael M. Markman 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: June 24, 2005 /s/ Adam K. Mortara 

 Attorney for Defendants 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as 

the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. 

Dated: July 22, 2005 _______________________________ 

 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 Visa proposes that the question of damages be tried separately from the other issues, only following a verdict of 

infringement of a valid patent claim. Safeclick opposes this proposal. The parties have agreed to leave the issue 

open for the purpose of this [proposed] case management order, subject to later motion and/or briefing on the issue. 

/s/

__ Saundra Brown Armstrong

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 108 Filed 07/22/05 Page 4 of 4