Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00240/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00240-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A MODIFICATION 

OF THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 5:10-CV-00240-RS

Chad S. Campbell 

Perkins Coie Brown &Bain P.A. 

2901 North Central Avenue 

Suite 2000 

Phoenix, AZ 85012−2755 

602−351−8000 

Fax: 602−648−7000 

Email: cscampbell@perkinscoie.com 

Lauren Sliger 

Perkins Coie LLP 

1888 Century Park East 

Suite 1700 

Los Angeles, CA 90067−1721 

310−788−9900 

Fax: 310−788−3399 

Email: lsliger@perkinscoie.com 

Farschad Farzan 

Christopher Kao 

Perkins Coie LLP 

Four Embarcadero Center 

Suite 2400 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

415−344−7000 

Fax: 415−344−7050 

Email: ffarzan@perkinscoie.com 

Email: ckao@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION 

Morgan Chu (SBN 70446) 

Perry Goldberg (SBN 168976) 

Samuel Lu (SBN 171969) 

IRELL & MANELLA LLP 

1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 

Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 

Telephone: (310) 277-1010 

Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 

E-mail: mchu@irell.com 

E-mail: pgoldberg@irell.com 

E-mail: slu@irell.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TIVO INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff 

 v. 

TIVO INC., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 5:10−cv−00240−RS 

 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR 

A MODIFICATION OF THE 

COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

*E-Filed 6/25/10*

Case 5:10-cv-00240-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 7
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 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A MODIFICATION 

OF THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 5:10-CV-00240-RS - 2 - 

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, the undersigned counsel hereby jointly 

request an order changing time that would affect the dates of certain claim construction events set 

forth in the Court's Case Management Scheduling Order. In addition, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

7-12, the undersigned counsel jointly request a modification of certain discovery limitations set 

forth in the Court's Case Management Scheduling Order. 

II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING

A. Reasons for the Requested Enlargement

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(1), the reasons for the requested enlargement of time 

are as follows. 

• This case presently involves two patents asserted by Microsoft against TiVo. Dkt. 

No. 1. 

• On May 27, 2010, Microsoft served TiVo with its asserted claims and infringement 

contentions for the original two patents as specified in the Case Management 

Scheduling Order. Dkt No. 23. 

• On May 31, 2010, Microsoft filed a motion to amend seeking to assert five 

additional patents against TiVo. Dkt. No. 27. One week later, on June 7, 2010, 

Microsoft served TiVo with its asserted claims and infringement contentions for the 

five additional patents. 

• TiVo filed a statement of non-opposition in which TiVo offered not to oppose 

Microsoft's motion to amend so long as appropriate adjustments were made to the 

existing Case Management Scheduling Order. Dkt. No. 32. 

Case 5:10-cv-00240-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 7
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 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A MODIFICATION 

OF THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 5:10-CV-00240-RS - 3 - 

• The parties agreed, in principle, to extend the current claim construction deadlines 

by approximately three months, if the Court were to grant Microsoft's motion to 

amend. Dkt. No. 32. 

• Under the parties' proposed schedule, TiVo would have slightly over five months 

from when TiVo received notice of Microsoft's five additional patents (i.e., when 

Microsoft filed its motion to amend) in which to serve TiVo's invalidity 

contentions, which is approximately the same amount of time that TiVo would 

have to prepare invalidity contentions had Microsoft filed a separate case. (In SAP 

Aktiengesellschaft v. I2 Technologies, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 472, 475 (N.D. Cal. 2008), 

the court (1) granted plaintiff's opposed motion to amend to add a new patent to the 

case and (2) gave the defendant 189 days from the date of the plaintiff's motion to 

amend in which to serve the defendant's invalidity contentions.) 

• The parties have thus reached agreement regarding both Microsoft's motion to 

amend and TiVo's request to modify the claim construction schedule. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the parties' jointly requested enlargement of time is reasonable. 

B. Previous Time Modifications

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), the parties disclose that the only previous time 

modification in this case was a joint stipulation giving TiVo a thirty-day extension of time to 

answer, plead, or otherwise respond to Microsoft's complaint. 

C. Effect the Requested Modification Would Have on the Schedule

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(3), the parties submit the following proposal for a 

modified claim construction schedule. The proposal describes the effect that the requested 

modification would have on the current claim construction schedule: 

Case 5:10-cv-00240-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 7
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 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A MODIFICATION 

OF THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 5:10-CV-00240-RS - 4 - 

Claim Construction Event Current Date Proposed Date

Invalidity Contentions July 26, 2010 November 4, 2010 

Exchange Proposed Terms for 

Construction 

August 9, 2010 November 18, 2010 

Exchange Preliminary Claim 

Constructions and Extrinsic 

Evidence 

August 30, 2010 December 9, 2011 

Joint Claim Construction and 

Expert Reports 

September 24, 2010 January 6, 2011 

Motion to Amend the Pleadings October 1, 2010 January 13, 2011 

Completion of Claim 

Construction Discovery 

October 22, 2010 February 3, 2011 

Opening Claim Construction 

Brief 

November 8, 2010 February 17, 2011 

Responsive Claim Construction 

Brief 

November 22, 2010 March 3, 2011 

Reply Claim Construction Brief December 1, 2010 March 10, 2011 

Tutorial January 26, 2011 1 week before Claim 

Construction Hearing 

Claim Construction Hearing February 2, 2011 Early May 2011 

Further Case Management 

Conference 

March 3, 2011 1 month after Claim 

Construction Hearing 

III. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS

 The Court ordered the following relevant discovery limitations in the Case Management 

Scheduling Order: 

(a) fifteen (15) non-expert depositions per party, including depositions 

contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); 

Case 5:10-cv-00240-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 7
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 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A MODIFICATION 

OF THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 5:10-CV-00240-RS - 5 - 

(d) fifty requests for admission per party (exclusive of requests for admission 

seeking document identification). 

 If the Court were to grant Microsoft's motion to amend, the parties would agree to a 

proposed modification of these discovery limitations as follows: 

(a)(1) twenty-three (23) non-expert depositions per party, including depositions 

contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), with both parties having the right to seek 

leave of court for additional depositions if necessary; 

(a)(2) Joseph H. Matthews, III (one of the inventor-witnesses named on four 

different patents) may be deposed for up to ten (10) hours; 

(d) seventy requests for admission per party (exclusive of requests for admission 

seeking document identification). 

 The proposed discovery limitations are reasonable and appropriate given that, if 

Microsoft’s motion to amend were granted, the number of patents in this case would increase from 

two to seven patents and the number of possible inventor-witnesses would increase from five to 

thirteen possible inventor-witnesses. 

 IV. STIPULATION

 THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, by and through their respective counsel, and 

respectfully request that the Court modify the Court's Case Management Scheduling Order as 

follows: 

 1. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING 

Claim Construction Event New Date

Invalidity Contentions November 4, 2010 

Exchange Proposed Terms for 

Construction 

November 18, 2010 

Case 5:10-cv-00240-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/25/10 Page 5 of 7
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 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A MODIFICATION 

OF THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 5:10-CV-00240-RS - 6 - 

Exchange Preliminary Claim 

Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence 

December 9, 2011 

Joint Claim Construction and Expert 

Reports 

January 6, 2011 

Motion to Amend the Pleadings January 13, 2011 

Completion of Claim Construction 

Discovery 

February 3, 2011 

Opening Claim Construction Brief February 17, 2011 

Responsive Claim Construction Brief March 3, 2011 

Reply Claim Construction Brief March 10, 2011 

Tutorial 1 week before Claim 

Construction Hearing 

Claim Construction Hearing Early May 2011 

Further Case Management Conference 1 month after Claim 

Construction Hearing 

 2. DISCOVERY 

Discovery limitations shall be modified as follows: 

(a)(1) twenty-three (23) non-expert depositions per party, including depositions 

contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), with both parties having the right to seek 

leave of court for additional depositions if necessary; 

(a)(2) Joseph H. Matthews, III (one of the inventor-witnesses named on four 

different patents) may be deposed for up to ten (10) hours; 

(d) seventy requests for admission per party (exclusive of requests for admission 

seeking document identification). 

 All other discovery limitations shall remain the same. 

May 11, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. May 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. June 23, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.

Case 5:10-cv-00240-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/25/10 Page 6 of 7
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 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A MODIFICATION 

OF THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 5:10-CV-00240-RS - 7 - 

Dated: June 24, 2010 

IRELL & MANELLA LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TiVo Inc. 

By: /s/ Samuel K. Lu 

 Samuel K. Lu 

PERKINS COIE LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Microsoft Corporation 

By: /s/ Lauren Sliger 

 Lauren Sliger 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 

Date: _________________________________ 

 Hon. Richard Seeborg 

 United States District Judge 

6/25/10

Case 5:10-cv-00240-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/25/10 Page 7 of 7