Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063-31/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 05-4063 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF

THE CASE

MANAGEMENT

SCHEDULE, VACATING

DATES IN CASE

MANAGEMENT

SCHEDULE AND

ORDERING PARTIES

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

COURT-APPOINTED

EXPERT SHOULD NOT

BE APPOINTED

Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. moves to modify the case management

schedule. Defendants oppose the motion, stating that, although

they would agree to an extension of discovery and other deadlines,

Plaintiff's six-month extension of discovery is unwarranted. The

matter was decided on the papers. Having considered the parties'

papers and good cause appearing, the Court grants Plaintiff's

motion in part and vacates the dates provided in the case

management schedule. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that a case

management schedule can be modified upon a showing of good cause

and by leave of the district judge. The Ninth Circuit has stated

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 402 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in

support of its motion for modification of the case management

(Docket No. 395) schedule is GRANTED.

2

that the "'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence

of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify 

the pretrial schedule 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983 amendment)). 

 The Court finds good cause for modifying the case management

schedule. The Court, however, will adopt neither Plaintiff's

requested modification nor Defendants' proposed modification. 

Rather, the Court vacates the dates provided in the case management

schedule. Fact discovery will remain open until at least June 1,

2007. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning a

proposed revised case management schedule and, if necessary, to

address this matter with the special master. This proposed case

management schedule should address two different scenarios: one in

which the Court bifurcates liability and damages, as recommended by

the special master in his March 7, 2006 order, and one in which the

Court does not. The parties will submit their proposed schedules

three weeks from the date of this order. If the parties, however,

cannot reach agreement, Plaintiff and Defendants are ordered to

submit, three weeks from the date of this order, their proposed

schedules and no more than five pages of argument as to why the

Court should adopt their proposed schedules.1

 Included with the

proposed schedules, the parties are to provide the Court with

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 402 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

The Court finds that the technology at issue in this case is

particularly difficult for a lay jury to understand.

3

commentary, no more than five pages per side, on their position

concerning whether liability and damages should be bifurcated.

Within three weeks from the date of this order, the parties

are also ordered to show cause why an expert witness should not be

appointed by the Court to testify to the jury on the technology at

issue. See Fed. R. Evid. 706.2 The parties shall meet and confer

concerning the individual that the Court should select as the

court-appointed expert, if it determines that a court-appointed

expert is suitable in this case. If the parties cannot agree on

the individual, the parties shall try to agree on the process for

selecting the individual and shall inform the Court of the agreed

process. If the parties cannot agree on a process, the parties

will provide the Court with commentary, no more than five pages per

side, on why the Court should use their proposed process. The

parties are also ordered to submit a proposed schedule, including

when the parties would provide the court-appointed expert with

information, and what information should be provided, when the

court-appointed expert's report should be due and when the parties

would depose the court-appointed expert. 

The Court will consider the parties' proposed schedules and

statements and then issue an order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/13/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 402 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 3