Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01431/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01431-11/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE

HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 03-1431 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 436, 441, 446, 448, 473, 493,

641, 648]

On May 8, 2006, Fresenius filed an Administrative Motion To Continue Hearing Scheduled For

May 16, 2006 [Docket No. 641]. On May 9, 2006, Baxter filed an Opposition to Fresenius'

Administrative Motion. On May 10, 2006, Fresenius filed an Administrative Motion For Leave to File

a Reply to Baxter's Opposition [Docket No. 648]. 

The only basis for Fresenius' Administrative Motion [Docket No. 641] is to accommodate the

schedule of Ms. Juanita Brooks, an attorney affiliated with Fish & Richardson, who filed her appearance

in this action on April 11, 2006. The Court does not require Ms. Brook's presence at the hearing,

however. Ms. Brooks did not sign any of the briefs pending before this Court. In fact, she filed her

appearance after all of the briefing had been completed. Further, Fresenius is currently represented by

two different law firms and there are at least eleven attorneys of record in this matter. The Court

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 651 Filed 05/10/06 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

The Court may still, in its discretion, adjudicate these motions without a hearing, in which case

the Clerk will notify the parties that no appearance is necessary.

2

presumes that each attorney of record is fully capable of adequately representing Fresenius at the

hearing, if the Court deems one necessary. Fresenius will suffer no prejudice due to Ms. Brooks'

unavailability.

Further, both parties are hereby advised that the Court is NOT moving the trial date back two

months to accommodate Ms. Brooks' schedule, or any other attorney's schedule. This case has been

pending for over three years and will commence on June 19, 2006 as scheduled. The Court assumes

that, since the parties had ample time and resources to devote to briefing this Administrative Motion

extensively, they are fully prepared to comply with their obligations relating to the impending trial. 

The Court further reminds the parties that it has been asked to review no less than ten motions

consisting of several hundred pages of briefing and over a thousand pages of evidentiary material in a

very short time period. Accordingly, the parties are strongly advised not to file any further motions with

the Court without first engaging in a meaningful meet and confer in an effort to informally resolve their

disputes without the need for Court intervention. Filing numerous administrative motions for the Court's

consideration only serves to deplete scarce judicial resources and detracts from the Court's ability to

timely resolve the substantive motions that are still pending before the Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Fresenius' Administrative Motion To Continue Hearing

Scheduled For May 16, 2006 [Docket No. 641] is DENIED. Fresenius' Administrative Motion For

Leave To File a Reply to Baxter's Opposition [Docket No. 648] is also DENIED. Due to the purely

administrative nature of the Motion, the Court does not find that additional briefing on this matter is

necessary or helpful. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the May 16, 2006 hearing will remain on schedule with

respect to the following motions:1

(a) Fresenius' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the Asserted

Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,326,476 and 5,744,027 [Docket No. 441],

and 

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 651 Filed 05/10/06 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

3

(b) Baxter's Motion to Bar Fresenius' Proffered Damages Expert Professor

Rubinfeld [Docket No. 446]. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the May 16, 2006 hearing is VACATED with respect to

the following motions, due to the fact that the Court considers these matters fully submitted on the

papers and appropriate for resolution without a hearing: 

(a) Fresenius' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the Asserted

Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,247,434 and 6,284,131 [Docket No. 436],

(b) Baxter's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Validity [Docket No.

448], 

(c) Baxter's Motion to Strike Fresenius' Best Mode and Anticipation

Defenses [Docket No. 473], and

(d) Baxter's Motion to Strike PTO Documents [Docket No. 493].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 5/10/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 651 Filed 05/10/06 Page 3 of 3