Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717-12/pdf.json

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

---

MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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 [PROPOSED] PRE-TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER (No. C-06-3717-MJJ) 

Terrence P. McMahon (State Bar No. 71910) 

tmcmahon@mwe.com 

Anthony de Alcuaz (State Bar No. 65599) 

adealcuaz@mwe.com 

Robert J. Blanch (State Bar No. 189632) 

rblanch@mwe.com 

Arturo E. Sandoval (State Bar No. 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 

Telephone: 650.813.5000 

Facsimile: 650.813.5100 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES 

AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED and 

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Jeffrey S. Love (State Bar No. 195068) 

jeffrey.love@klarquist.com 

Samir N. Pandya (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

samir.pandya@klarquist.com 

Garth A. Winn (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

garth.winn@klarquist.com 

KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 

121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 

Portland, OR 97204-2988 

Telephone: 503.595.5300 

Facsimile: 503.595.5301 

Eric L. Wesenberg (State Bar No. 139696) 

ewesenberg@orrick.com 

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 

1000 Marsh Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 

Telephone: (650) 614-7400 

Facsimile: (650) 614-7401 

Attorneys for Defendant 

INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY 

and Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IGT 

Complete list on signature page (L.R. 3-4(a)) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Case 3:06-cv-03717-MJJ Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 6
 Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 152 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 6
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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 

AMENDED JOINT [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER -1- (No. C-06-3717-MJJ) 

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES 

AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED AND 

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL GAME 

TECHNOLOGY, 

 Defendant, 

and IGT, 

Defendant and 

Counterclaimant-Plaintiff.

CASE NO. C-06-03717-MJJ 

AMENDED JOINT [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

Department: Room 11, 19th floor, SF 

Judge: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins 

Pursuant to the Court’s October 10, 2006 Order at the Initial Case Management 

Conference, the parties in the above-entitled action jointly submit this Amended Joint [Proposed] 

Pre-Trial Scheduling Order for the Court’s consideration. 

CASE SCHEDULE

 At the October 10, 2006 conference, the Court ordered the following case schedule:

October 24, 2006 LD for Aristocrat to serve disclosure of 

asserted claims and preliminary infringement 

contentions and docs (Patent L.R. 3-1 and 

L.R. 3-2) 

December 8, 2006 LD for IGT to serve preliminary invalidity 

contentions (Patent L.R. 3-3 and L.R. 3-4) 

December 22, 2006 LD for parties to exchange list of claim terms 

to be construed (Patent L.R. 4-1) 

January 11, 2007 LD for parties to exchange preliminary claim 

construction and extrinsic evidence (Patent 

L.R. 4-2) 

February 6, 2007 LD for parties to file a joint claim 

construction statement and pre-hearing 

statement (Patent L.R. 4-3) 

March 8, 2007 LD for parties to complete discovery relating 

to claim construction (Patent L.R. 4-4) 

March 23, 2007 LD for Aristocrat to file opening claim 

construction brief (Patent L.R. 4-5) 

Case 3:06-cv-03717-MJJ Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 6
 Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 152 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 6
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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 

AMENDED JOINT [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER -2- 

April 6, 2007 LD for IGT to file responsive claim 

construction brief (Patent L.R. 4-5) 

April 17, 2007 LD for Aristocrat to file reply brief to IGT’s 

responsive claim construction brief (Patent 

L.R. 4-5(c)) 

May 18, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Tutorial 

May 30, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Markman hearing (Patent L.R. 4-6) 

June 6, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Further Status Conference, to schedule 

matters up to pretrial conference, including 

mediation with Magistrate Judge 

January 29, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. Pre-trial Conference 

February 11, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. Trial 

A. Discovery Limits

At the October 10, 2006 conference, the Court ordered the following limitations on case 

discovery: 

• Interrogatories: 25 per side. 

• Depositions: 10 per side (3- 30(b)(6) depositions having multiple 

 topics per notice). 

• Document Requests: 40 per side. 

• Requests for Admissions: 40 per side (excluding authentication RFA’s).

Under these limitations, a single discovery request served on both Plaintiffs, or both Defendants, 

counts as just one request, even if two different responses are served. 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 3:06-cv-03717-MJJ Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 6
 Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 152 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 6
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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 

AMENDED JOINT [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER -3- 

Dated: March 15, 2007 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

By: /s/ Arturo E. Sandoval 

Terrence P. McMahon 

Anthony de Alcuaz 

Robert J. Blanch 

Arturo E. Sandoval 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES 

AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED AND 

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Love 

Jeffrey S. Love 

Samir N. Pandya 

Garth A. Winn 

Attorneys for Defendant 

INTERNATIONAL GAME 

TECHNOLOGY and 

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Plaintiff 

IGT 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

LLP 

By: /s/ Eric L.Wesenberg 

 Eric L. Wesenberg 

Attorney for Defendant 

INTERNATIONAL GAME 

TECHNOLOGY and 

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Plaintiff 

IGT 

Case 3:06-cv-03717-MJJ Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 6
 Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 152 Filed 03/19/07 Page 4 of 6
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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 

AMENDED JOINT [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER -4- 

CERTIFICATION BY ARTURO E. SANDOVAL PURSUANT TO GENERAL RULE NO. 45, 

SECTION X. RE E-FILING ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE SIGNATORIES 

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California, and am a 

partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, counsel for plaintiffs Aristocrat 

Technologies Australia Pty Limited and Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. in this matter. The 

statements herein are made on my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness I could and 

would testify thereto. 

2. The above e-filed document contains multiple signatures. I declare that 

concurrence has been obtained from each of the other signatories to file this jointly prepared 

document with the Court. Pursuant to General Rule No. 45, I shall maintain records to support 

this concurrence for subsequent production for the Court if so ordered, or for inspection upon 

request by a party until one year after final resolution of the action (including appeal, if any). 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct on this 15th day of March, 2007. 

 /s/ Arturo E. Sandoval 

 Arturo E. Sandoval

Case 3:06-cv-03717-MJJ Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 6
 Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 152 Filed 03/19/07 Page 5 of 6
MCDERMOTT 

WILL 

& EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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 

 (Case No. C-06-3717-MJJ) 

AMENDED JOINT [PROPOSED] PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Amended Joint [Proposed] Pre-Trial Scheduling Order is hereby adopted by the Court 

as the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this 

Order. 

Dated: , 2007 

 THE HONORABLE MARTIN J. JENKINS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

MPK 116610-3.074272.0016 

Case 3:06-cv-03717-MJJ Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 6

March 19

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 152 Filed 03/19/07 Page 6 of 6