Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05865/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05865-5/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

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

HARVEY SISKIND JACOBS LLP 

D. PETER HARVEY (State Bar No. 55712) 

Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4115 

Telephone: (415) 354-0100 

Facsimile: (415) 391-7124 

BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP 

MARK E. FERGUSON (pro hac vice) 

MARK L. LEVINE (pro hac vice) 

54 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, IL 60610-4697 

Telephone: (312) 494-4400 

Facsimile: (312) 494-4440 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SAFECLICK, LLC 

STANLEY YOUNG (Bar. No. 121180) 

MICHAEL M. MARKMAN (Bar No. 191388) 

HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE LLP 

275 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506 

Telephone: (650) 324-7000 

Facsimile: (650) 324-0638 

syoung@hellerehrman.com 

Attorneys for Defendants VISA U.S.A. INC. and 

VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SAFECLICK, LLC, an Iowa limited liability 

company, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE 

ASSOCIATION., a Delaware corporation, and 

VISA U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C03-05865 SBA ADR

STIPULATION AND 

ORDER 

JUDGE: Honorable Saundra B. 

 Armstrong 

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 138 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

1

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

The parties have met and conferred concerning possible revisions to the case 

management schedule. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties, it is necessary to 

conduct some of the noticed depositions after the current discovery deadline. This, in turn, 

requires a short extension of the expert report deadlines. It will not affect any other scheduled 

dates. Thus, pursuant to their discussions, and in order to avoid the need for motions practice, 

the parties jointly propose the following modifications to the case management schedule 

currently in effect, with changes noted in bold: 

Rule Event Explanation of Time 

Interval

Proposed Date

 Fact discovery cutoff, 

save for depositions 

agreed to by the parties,1

on all issues

Sufficient time to 

conduct depositions 

Sept. 1, 2005 

 Hearing on Visa’s limited 

motion for summary 

judgment

Sept. 20, 2005 

Opening expert reports 

by parties with burden 

of proof 

Sept. 19, 2005 

Deposition discovery 

cutoff for depositions 

agreed to by the parties, 

on all issues 

Sufficient time to 

conduct depositions 

Oct. 7, 2005 

Rebuttal expert report 

re non-infringement and 

invalidity 

23 days after opening 

expert reports 

Oct. 12, 2005 

Rebuttal expert report 

re damages 

30 days after opening 

expert reports 

October 19, 2005

 

1

 The parties have agreed to hold the following depositions after the fact-discovery cutoff: Messrs. Yakel, 

McCarthy, Lewis, Codding, Brockhaus, Rikard and Makeig; in addition to a deposition of Visa U.S.A. and Visa 

International pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) under notices previously served. 

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 138 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

2

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

Rule Event Explanation of Time 

Interval

Proposed Date

Last day to file dispositive 

motions 

35 days before last day 

to hear dispositive 

motions 

Nov. 8, 2005 

Close of expert discovery 30 days after rebuttal 

expert reports 

Nov. 11, 2005 

 Opposition briefs to 

dispositive motions filed 

on deadline 

21 days before last day 

to hear dispositive 

motions 

Nov. 22, 2005 

Standing order Parties meet and confer re 

pretrial conference 

41 days before pretrial 

conference 

Nov. 29, 2005 

 Reply briefs re dispositive 

motions filed on deadline 

14 days before last day 

to hear dispositive 

motions 

Nov. 29, 2005 

Standing order Parties file joint pretrial 

statement 

35 days before pretrial 

conference 

Dec. 5, 2005 

Standing order Parties file motions in 

limine and objections to 

evidence 

28 days before pretrial 

conference 

Dec. 12, 2005 

 Last day to hear 

dispositive motions 

 Dec. 13, 2005 

Standing order Parties file responses to 

motions in limine and 

objections to evidence 

21 days before pretrial 

conference 

Dec. 19, 2005 

March 15, 

2005 Order of 

Magistrate 

Judge Chen 

Final mandatory 

settlement conference (to 

be set by Magistrate 

Judge) 

 Pursuant to 

Magistrate Judge 

Chen’s order, 

Settlement 

conference held 

on August 5, 

2005. Further 

conferences may 

be scheduled as 

appropriate. 

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 138 Filed 09/02/05 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. C03-05865 SBA

3

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

Rule Event Explanation of Time 

Interval

Proposed Date

Prior order Pretrial conference Jan. 10, 2006 

Prior order Trial (7-8 trial days)2 Jan 23, 2006 

The parties do not propose any other modifications to the existing Case Management 

Order. 

Dated: August 29, 2005 /s/ Mark L. Levine 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: August 29, 2005 /s/ Michael M. Markman 

 Attorney for Defendants 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as 

the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. 

Dated: September 2, 2005 ________________________________ 

 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

2

 Visa proposes that the question of damages be tried separately from the other issues, only following a verdict of 

infringement of a valid patent claim. Safeclick opposes this proposal. The parties have agreed to leave the issue 

open for the purposes of this [proposed] case management order, subject to later motion and/or briefing on the issue. 

Case 4:03-cv-05865-SBA Document 138 Filed 09/02/05 Page 4 of 4