Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02187/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02187-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff and 

Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

Q-LITY COMPUTER INC., QUANTA COMPUTER

INC., and QUANTA COMPUTER USA INC.,

Defendants and 

Counterclaimants. /

No. C 01-2187 CW 

ORDER REGARDING

COURT-APPOINTED

EXPERT AND

STAYING CASE

The parties have submitted a joint case management statement

regarding the grant of certiorari in this case by the United States

Supreme Court. The parties agree that this case should be stayed

pending the Supreme Court's decision. Recognizing efficiency

concerns and the parties' agreement that the Supreme Court's

decision will not resolve all issues in this case, the parties

agree to allow some discovery that is already underway to be

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 8
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

completed despite the stay. 

Accordingly and good cause appearing therefor, the Court

orders:

1. This case shall be stayed pending the resolution of

Defendants' pending appeal before the Supreme Court, except for

specific discovery-related matters as outlined below.

2. The parties may continue to complete discovery that is

already underway to the extent that they agree is appropriate.

3. The hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment

scheduled for October 11, 2007, the pretrial conference scheduled

for December 21, 2007 and the trial scheduled to begin on January

22, 2008 are vacated. 

4. A twenty-four day jury trial shall be scheduled to begin

on November 12, 2008.

5. Within one week of the Supreme Court's decision in this

case, the parties shall file a joint case management conference

statement and the Court will schedule a case management conference

to address hearing or re-briefing the motion for summary judgment

and the scope of the trial. A further case management conference

shall be held on July 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm if it has not otherwise

been held.

6. While the case is stayed, the parties shall proceed with

the following procedure for selecting and obtaining the opinion of

a Court-appointed expert based in part on their supplemental joint

proposal for selecting a Court-appointed expert:

By October 25, 2007 Plaintiff and Defendants shall each

identify to the other up to three individuals who are acceptable to

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 8
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 3

them to serve as the Court-appointed expert, along with a

curriculum vitae and an indication of area of expertise. The

parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to identify a joint

proposed expert for the Court's consideration.

On or before November 15, 2007 the parties shall submit the

name of the jointly proposed expert. If the parties still believe

that they will need more than one expert, they may submit the name

of more than one expert and no more than five pages of joint

argument in support of their need for more than one expert. In the

event the parties cannot agree on a nominee, the parties will

submit their respective nominations to the Court on November 15,

2007 along with whatever objections they have regarding nominations

made by the opposing party. Each party's submission of nominations

and objections and reasons therefore shall not exceed five pages. 

The Court will then issue an order identifying the expert and

outlining his or her duties. 

The Court-appointed expert shall serve as a neutral,

independent expert on behalf of the Court on the technology at

issue in this case. His or her duties shall be to provide expert

analysis and opinions as to the technical issues in this case,

including issues concerning infringement and validity of the

asserted claims of the patents-in-suit.

Within five days of appointment, the parties shall provide the

expert with various materials to use as resources when forming his

or her opinions. These materials will be provided in organized

binders that are labeled and tabbed and shall include the

patents-in-suit, the prosecution histories of the patents-in-suit,

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 8
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 4

the Court’s claim construction order, the parties' infringement and

invalidity contentions, the Federal Circuit decision, LG Elecs.,

Inc. v. Bizcom Elecs., Inc., 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the

parties’ initial technical expert reports and the deposition

transcripts of the parties’ respective technical experts. The

parties shall also provide the Court-appointed expert with copies

of the parties’ supplemental expert reports, and technical experts’

deposition transcripts. 

The Court-appointed expert may request in writing with notice

to all parties any information or documentation referenced in the

documents provided, which the appropriate party shall provide. 

Additional materials will be made available to the Court-appointed

expert by the parties as requested by him or her.

The Court-appointed expert may give these materials as much

weight and consideration as he or she believes in his or

professional judgment is required. Some of the materials, such as

the parties' summary judgment briefs, may be helpful to consider

because they frame the parties' key contentions, but they may also

contain attorney arguments and discussions on unrelated legal

matters that are not relevant. Some of these materials may also

mention other patents or parties that are no longer at issue in

this case. Although the Court-appointed expert may look to the

expert reports from the parties' experts to provide guidance as to

what the experts and the parties believe are the key issues to be

addressed in this case, it is not the Court-appointed expert's role

to critique the parties' experts. The Court-appointed expert's

opinions are to be his or her own independent opinions. 

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 4 of 8
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 5

The Court-appointed expert will not be required to provide a

detailed analysis of patent law. The basic law regarding the task

will be set out in the order appointing the expert. In addition,

the Court-appointed expert will have the opportunity to ask

questions, as described below, in the event that a patent law

question comes up that has not been addressed.

After appointment, all written correspondence between any one

or more parties or the Court and the Court-appointed expert shall

be served upon all parties. Each party and the Court may meet with

the Court-appointed expert, in person, telephonically, or

otherwise, without all parties being present, although each party

is entitled to have a representative participate in all oral

or in-person communications with the Court-appointed expert and

must be given reasonable notice and opportunity to participate

before the Court or the other parties can proceed to communicate

with the Court-appointed expert.

The Court-appointed expert may contact the Court, by calling

its clerk at (510) 637-3542, if questions come up or if he or she

encounters difficulty in accomplishing the assigned tasks. The

clerk will arrange a conference call with the attorneys. The

Court-appointed expert may also contact the Court by letter, with a

copy to the parties, or by emailing the clerk with a copy to the

parties. The clerk's email address is

sheilah_cahill@cand.uscourts.gov. In addition, the Court-appointed

expert may contact the parties directly, by using the e-mail 

addresses that they will provide to him or her, if he or she needs

additional documents or other information. The Court-appointed

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 5 of 8
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 6

expert, however, shall not contact only one party, as it is

important that both sides be given the chance to communicate with

him or her jointly if needed. The parties will set up a conference

call if necessary. 

The Court-appointed expert shall prepare and serve on all

parties a written expert report containing a complete statement of

all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore;

the data or other information considered by the witness in forming

the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support

for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a

list of all publications authored by the witness within the

preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and

testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the

witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within

the preceding four years. The Court expects that it will seek to

have the expert submit his or her report in approximately May,

2008. 

After the service of the written expert report, the parties

may depose the Court-appointed expert. Each party may depose the

Court-appointed expert for ten hours. Such depositions shall be

concluded within three weeks of the date the Court-appointed

expert's report is filed. 

After the conclusion of discovery with respect to the Courtappointed expert, the parties may serve supplemental expert reports 

from their own respective experts responsive to the report and

testimony of the Court-appointed expert. Any such report is to be

limited in scope to issues first raised by the Court-appointed

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 6 of 8
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 7

expert. Any such reports shall be filed and served within four

weeks of the date the Court-appointed expert's report is filed. 

After the service of supplemental expert reports, if any, the

parties may depose any opposing experts that submitted a

supplemental expert report within two weeks of the service of those

reports.

The Court-appointed expert witness will be called to testify

at trial by the Court after the close of both parties' cases in

chief and will be subject to cross-examination by each party. The

fact that the Court appointed the expert witness will be disclosed

to the jury, and special jury instructions will be given related to

the weight to be given to the Court-appointed expert’s testimony.

The Court and the parties will attempt to accommodate the Courtappointed expert's schedule and to give him or her as much advance

notice as possible as to what day (or days) he or she will be

needed to testify. Trials are complex matters, however, involving

many witnesses, so flexibility may be required. 

Reasonable compensation of the Court-appointed expert and

reimbursement for all reasonable expenses incurred in connection

with this work, such as travel, copying, telephone, postage and

courier costs shall be paid equally by the parties. The Courtappointed expert shall submit to the parties monthly statements

specifying the number of hours spent and a brief description of the

projects worked on. Before the Court-appointed expert begins work,

the parties shall each deposit, and maintain, a $20,000 retainer in

their attorneys' trust accounts from which the expert will be paid

within thirty days of each bill. The Court-appointed expert shall

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 7 of 8
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 8

be responsible for any tax obligations arising from this payment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/1/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1096 Filed 10/01/07 Page 8 of 8