Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD,

Plaintiff,

v

QUANTA COMPUTER, INC, et al,

Defendants. /

No C-00-4524 VRW

ORDER

The court has received two letters dated February 14 and

16, 2006, from counsel for defendant Compal Electronics, Inc, and

two letters dated February 15, 2006, from counsel for defendant

Quanta Computer, Inc, and from counsel for plaintiff Samsung

Electronics Co, Ltd.

Compal’s Valentine’s Day letter requests the court to

continue the expert discovery cutoff, the hearing and filing

deadline for summary judgment motions and the pretrial conference

date, because (1) a further claim construction on a term is

scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2006, one week after the opening

summary judgment briefs are due, and (2) one of Compal’s attorneys,

Matthew J Hult, has a “long-scheduled honeymoon in March.”

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 329 Filed 03/02/06 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

In this extraordinary series of letters, Quanta has

agreed to Compal’s request to continue these dates, but Samsung

strenuously refuses, apparently unmoved by Mr Hult’s honeymoon

plans. Unable to resolve this critical matter on its own, Compal’s

counsel has sought relief from the court.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS the following: (1) the

hearing on summary judgment and Daubert motions will be continued

to June 15, 2006, and the last day to file these motions will be

May 11, 2006, and (2) the expert discovery cutoff and pretrial

conference date will remain as previously scheduled. The court

notes that extending the expert discovery cutoff is unnecessary,

given that such extrinsic evidence will not be considered in the

further claim construction. And if the court changes its prior

claim construction and the parties believe that additional expert

discovery is necessary, the parties can raise this issue at a later

date, but they are directed to limit their submissions to intrinsic

evidence until further order of the court.

Because the parties failed to file their letters, the

clerk is DIRECTED to docket these letters and include them in the

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 329 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2