Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02655/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02655-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ANSWER DATES 

CASE NO. C06-02655 RMW 

MATTHEW F. WEIL (Bar No. 157505) 

CHRISTOPHER D. BRIGHT (Bar No. 206273) 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

18191 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 

Irvine, CA 92612-7108 

Telephone: 949.851.0633 

Facsimile: 949.851.9348 

E-mail: mweil@mwe.com 

E-mail: cbright@mwe.com 

PETER P. CHEN (Bar No. 111426) 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 

Telephone: 650.813.5000 

Facsimile: 650.813.5100 

E-mail: pchen@mwe.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SANDISK CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SANDISK CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AUDIO MPEG, INC., a Virginia 

corporation; U.S. PHILIPS 

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; 

FRANCE TÉLÉCOM, a French corporation; 

TÉLÉDIFFUSION DE FRANCE S.A., a 

French corporation; INSTITUT FÜR 

RUNDFUNKTECHNIK GMBH, a German 

corporation, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C06-02655 RMW 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ANSWER DATES 

Case Management Conference 

Date: July 28, 2006 

Time: 10:30 a.m. 

Case 5:06-cv-02655-RMW Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 4
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ANSWER DATES 

-1- CASE NO. C06-02655 RMW 

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”) 

and Defendants Audio MPEG Inc. (“Audio MPEG”), U.S. Philips Corp. (“Philips”), France 

Télécom, TDF (formerly known as Télédiffusion de France), and Institut Für 

Rundfunktechnik GMBH (“IRT”) (collectively “Defendants”) request that the Court 

continue the case management conference (now scheduled in this case for July 28, 2006) 

pending the outcome of SanDisk’s motion to dismiss and motion to transfer, which are 

currently pending in a related case in the Eastern District of Virginia. 

The following facts are relevant to this request: 

1. Audio MPEG filed a complaint against SanDisk in the Eastern District of 

Virginia on April 13, 2006 (“the Virginia Action”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 

Nos. 5,214,678; 5,323,396; 5,777,992; and 5,539,829. 

2. On April 19, 2006, SanDisk filed its complaint in the instant case, seeking 

declaratory relief with respect to the same patents that are at issue in the Eastern District of 

Virginia. In its complaint, SanDisk stated: “In the event the Eastern District of Virginia 

holds that it does have jurisdiction and that it is the most convenience [sic] forum, and 

therefore elects to retain jurisdiction, over the action filed on April 13, or some portion of 

it, SanDisk will take appropriate steps to insure that this Court and the Eastern District of 

Virginia are not confronted with duplicative litigation.” 

3. SanDisk filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing in the Virginia Action 

on April 20, 2006, on the basis that the patent owners (Philips, France Telecom, TDF, and 

IRT) had not been joined as plaintiffs. 

4. Audio MPEG, Philips, France Telecom, TDF, and IRT filed an Amended 

Complaint in the Virginia Action on April 28, 2006. 

5. On May 8, 2006, SanDisk filed in the Virginia Action a motion to transfer 

the case to this Court. 

6. The court for the Eastern District of Virginia heard oral argument on 

SanDisk’s motion to dismiss and motion to transfer on May 31, 2006, but has not yet ruled 

on either motion. 

Case 5:06-cv-02655-RMW Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 4
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ANSWER DATES 

-2- CASE NO. C06-02655 RMW 

7. The Court in this case has set the initial Case Management Conference for 

July 28, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. The Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Case Management 

Statement by July 21, 2006. 

In view of the foregoing, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE that: 

1. None of the Defendants shall be required to file an answer or responsive 

pleading to SanDisk’s complaint until at least ten (10) days after the court in 

the Virginia Action rules on SanDisk’s motion to dismiss or SanDisk’s 

motion to transfer; 

2. In addition, if the court in the Virginia Action decides one but not both of 

the pending motions, the parties shall promptly meet and confer to determine 

what, if any, further stipulation may be appropriate; 

3. The initial Case Management Conference currently scheduled for July 28, 

2006 and the Joint Case Management Statement due on July 21, 2006, 

should be continued until the parties jointly further advise the Court of the 

status of the Virginia Action, in a further submission to be filed no later than 

September 11, 2006; 

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties shall notify the Court of the 

resolution of SanDisk’s motion to dismiss and motion to transfer in the 

Virginia Action no later than five (5) days after the resolution of one or both 

of those motions; 

5. In the event that the Eastern District of Virginia denies SanDisk’s motion to 

transfer and denies SanDisk’s motion to dismiss, SanDisk will promptly 

“take appropriate steps to insure that this Court and the Eastern District of 

Virginia are not confronted with duplicative litigation.” 

6. By filing this stipulation, Defendants do not waive any arguments, including 

that they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in this case or that they have 

not been properly served in this case with the summons and complaint. 

Case 5:06-cv-02655-RMW Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 Page 3 of 4
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ANSWER DATES 

-3- CASE NO. C06-02655 RMW 

Before the filing of this stipulation, there have not been any changes to Court 

ordered deadlines or dates in this case. The effect on the schedule for this case depends on 

the timing and outcome of the resolution of SanDisk’s motions in the Virginia Action. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 13, 2006 

By: /s/ Matthew F. Weil By: /s/ Ethan B. Andelman 

Matthew F. Weil (Bar No. 157505) 

Christopher D. Bright (Bar No. 206273) 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

18191 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 

Irvine, CA 92612-7108 

Telephone: 949.851.0633 

Facsimile: 949.851.9348 

E-mail: mweil@mwe.com 

E-mail: cbright@mwe.com 

Peter P. Chen (Bar No. 111426) 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 

Telephone: 650.813.5000 

Facsimile: 650.813.5100 

E-mail: pchen@mwe.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SANDISK CORPORATION 

Robert P. Taylor 

Ethan B. Andelman 

HOWREY LLP 

525 Market Street 

Suite 3600 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Matthew J. Moore 

Brian A. Rosenthal 

HOWREY LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

 

Attorneys for Defendants AUDIO MPEG INC., 

U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION, FRANCE 

TÉLÉCOM, TDF, and INSTITUT FÜR 

RUNDFUNKTECHNIK GMBH 

 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:______________________ 

RONALD M. WHYTE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

ORC 392449-2.061590.0020 

Case 5:06-cv-02655-RMW Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 Page 4 of 4