Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04411/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04411-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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 REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC

Erik R. Puknys (SBN 190926)

erik.puknys@finnegan.com

M. Paul Barker (SBN 243986)

paul.barker@finnegan.com

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

3300 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, California 94304

Telephone: (650) 849-6600

Facsimile: (650) 849-6666

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cepheid

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CEPHEID,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. and 

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC

JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:12-cv-04411-EMC Document 97 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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 JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC

Plaintiff Cepheid filed this declaratory judgment action on August 21, 2012, seeking, inter 

alia, a declaration that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,804,375 (“the ’375 patent”) and 6,127,155 

(“the ’155 patent”) are not infringed, are invalid, and are otherwise unenforceable. Defendant Roche 

Molecular Systems, Inc. moved to stay Counts I and II related to the ’375 patent pending final 

resolution of a Swiss arbitration between the parties and moved to dismiss Counts III and IV related 

to the ’155 patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On January 17, 2013, the Court issued its 

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Motion to Dismiss (“Order”). ECF No. 68. The 

Court stayed Counts I and II until further order of this Court and dismissed Counts III and IV for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. With respect to Counts I and II, the Court directed the parties to 

“update this Court within 30 days of the issuance of the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision on the issue of 

jurisdiction.” Id. at 8. 

Pursuant to the Order, the parties notified the Court that on August 1, 2013, the International 

Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration issued a letter notifying the parties 

that the Arbitral Tribunal had rendered a Partial Award on arbitral jurisdiction, dated July 30, 2013. 

ECF No. 77. The Partial Award included an order concerning jurisdiction, in which the Arbitral 

Tribunal concluded that it has jurisdiction to decide on the relief sought by the claimants (i.e., Roche 

Molecular Systems, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd). Cepheid appealed the Arbitral Tribunal’s 

jurisdictional decision. Id. On February 28, 2014 the Swiss Federal Court dismissed Cepheid’s 

appeal in its entirety. On April 20, 2016 the Arbitral Tribunal issued a second Partial Award on 

liability issues. The Arbitration is proceeding in accordance with the schedule set by the Arbitral 

Tribunal.

Since the Court issued its January 2013 Order, the parties have jointly filed several 

stipulations to continue the Initial Case Management Conference and the Court has entered those 

stipulations. Specifically, on March 11, 2013, the Court reset the Case Management Conference 

from March 14, 2013 to June 20, 2013 (ECF Nos. 72, 73); on June 7, 2013 the Court reset the Case 

Management Conference from June 20, 2013 to October 10, 2013 (ECF Nos. 74, 75); on September 

23, 2013 the Court reset the Case Management Conference from October 10, 2013 to March 6, 2014

(ECF Nos. 77, 78); on February 26, 2014 the Court reset the Case Management Conference from 

Case 3:12-cv-04411-EMC Document 97 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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 JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC

March 6, 2014 to November 13, 2014 (ECF Nos. 81, 82); on November 7, 2014 the Court reset the 

Case Management Conference from November 13, 2014 to March 26, 2015 (ECF Nos. 84, 85); on 

March 13, 2015 the Court reset the Case Management Conference from March 26, 2015 to 

September 24, 2015 (ECF Nos. 86, 87), ), which was reset sua sponte to September 23, 2015 (ECF 

No. 88); on September 16, 2015, the Court reset the Case Management Conference from September 

23, 2015 to April 21, 2016 (ECF Nos. 89, 90), and on April 14, 2016, the Court reset the Case 

Management Conference from April 21, 2016 to October 27, 2016 (ECF Nos. 92, 93), which the 

Court then rescheduled sua sponte to November 8, 2016 (ECF No. 94).

As of this time, the parties continue to believe that it is not appropriate to lift the Court’s stay. 

Specifically, the Arbitral Tribunal has issued its Partial Award on liability and briefing on quantum 

issues is ongoing, with a final decision expected in May/June 2017.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Initial Case Management Conference, 

currently scheduled for November 8, 2016, be continued until June 13, 2017, or any other date that 

the Court deems appropriate. The parties will contact the Court before then if anything of substance 

occurs in the arbitration that may affect the status of this case.

By his signature below, Counsel for Plaintiff certifies that Counsel for Defendants concur in 

the filing of this notice.

Dated: November 3, 2016 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

/s/ Erik R. Puknys

Erik R. Puknys

Attorney for Plaintiff Cepheid

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND 

DORR LLP

/s/ Robert J. Gunther, Jr. 

Robert J. Gunther, Jr.

Attorney for Defendant F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

/s/ Stephen S. Rabinowitz

Stephen S. Rabinowitz

Attorney for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

15

Case 3:12-cv-04411-EMC Document 97 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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 JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04411-EMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore; 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _________________________ ____________________________________

United States District Judge

CMC reset for 6/15/17 at 9:30 a.m. An updated joint CMC statement shall be 

filed by 6/8/17. 

 11/3/2016

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:12-cv-04411-EMC Document 97 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 4