Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01988/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01988-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

ROBERT T. HASLAM (State Bar No. 71134) 

PETER E. GRATZINGER (State Bar No. 228764) 

ANUPAM SHARMA (State Bar No. 55609) 

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

275 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506 

Telephone: (650) 324-7000 

Facsimile: (650) 324-0638 

Robert.Haslam@hellerehrman.com

Peter.Gratzinger@hellerehrman.com

Anupam.Sharma@hellerehrman.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 

AZUL SYSTEMS, INC. 

HENRY C. BUNSOW (State Bar No. 60707) 

BENJAMIN K. RILEY (State Bar No. 112007) 

HOWREY LLP

525 Market Street, Suite 3600 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2708 

Telephone: (415) 848-4900 

Facsimile: (415) 848-4999 

BunsowH@howrey.com

RileyB@howrey.com

Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant 

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. 

Additional counsel on next page 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AZUL SYSTEMS, INC., 

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, 

v. 

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., 

 Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. 

 Case No.: C 06-01988 CRB 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER

 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 15
- 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 

 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

ALAN H. BLANKHEIMER (State Bar No. 218713) 

JODALE CAROTHERS (State Bar No. 228703) 

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

4350 La Jolla Village Drive, 7th Floor 

San Diego, California 92122-1246 

Telephone: (858) 450-8400 

Facsimile: (858) 450-8499 

Alan.Bankenheimer@hellerehrman.com

JoDale.Carothers@hellerehrman.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 

AZUL SYSTEMS, INC. 

THOMAS DUNHAM (pro hac vice) 

NELSON M. KEE (pro hac vice) 

HOWREY LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 783-0800 

Facsimile: (202) 383-6610 

DunhamT@howrey.com

KeeN@howrey.com

Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant 

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 15
- 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 

 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Case Management Statement and 

Proposed Order and request the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this 

case. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE 

1. A brief description of the events underlying the action: 

Azul Systems, Inc. (“Azul”) is a recently-formed, small company located in 

Mountain View, California. Azul has developed a server that is optimized to run Java, a 

programming language originated by Sun. The Azul computing products at issue in this 

case provide additional compute capacity to transaction-intensive applications and services 

as a shared network service. Because the Azul products operate in a Java environment, 

Azul obtained a license from Sun that Azul contends allows it to use various software 

provided by Sun. 

Sun Microsystems (“Sun”) is a technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, 

California. Sun was formed twenty-four years ago, and has focused on developing 

hardware and software to advance computing technology. 

In early 2005, Sun notified Azul that Sun believed that Azul could obtain substantial 

benefit from licensing “relevant technology” from Sun’s patent portfolio. Sun’s initial 

letter to Azul mentioned 8 specific patents. During subsequent discussions, additional Sun 

patents were identified. Throughout 2005 and into the first part of 2006, Sun and Azul 

discussed not only whether a patent license was necessary, but also Sun’s contention that 

Azul misappropriated various Sun trade secrets, as well as Azul’s belief that it had not 

misappropriated any Sun trade secrets. 

Following almost a year of unsuccessful discussions, Azul filed this action seeking 

declaratory relief that it does not infringe any valid claim of 20 patents owned by Sun (the 

"Declaratory Judgment patents") and that it did not use or misappropriate any Sun trade 

secrets. In answering Azul’s declaratory complaint, Sun counterclaimed for infringement 

of 6 patents owned by Sun, and also presented its allegations of trade secret 

misappropriation by Azul. Five of the six patents that Sun counterclaimed for infringement 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 15
- 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 

 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

on were raised during the year-long discussions between the parties, and one is newly 

raised. 

Azul believes that in addition to defenses of non-infringement and invalidity, it also 

has a license to one or more of the patents by virtue of its license agreement with Sun. 

Azul also believes that it has not misappropriated any Sun trade secrets. Sun believes that 

Azul is infringing at least the 6 patents asserted in Sun’s counterclaims (collectively, the 

“Counterclaim patents”), and that Azul has misappropriated Sun’s trade secrets. Sun has 

also denied that the court has declaratory judgment jurisdiction with respect to the 15 

Declaratory Judgment patents for which Sun has not filed infringement counterclaims. 

2. The principal factual issues which the parties dispute: 

(a) The principal factual issues in dispute relating to Sun’s Counterclaim 

patent claims are: 

1. Whether the accused Azul products infringe any claim(s) of the Counterclaim 

patents. 

2. Whether any asserted claims are invalid under sections 102, 103 or 112 of the 

Patent Act. 

3. Whether Azul is licensed with respect to one or more of the patents. 

4. Whether any infringement of any valid claim was willful. 

5. Whether Sun is entitled to damages and/or injunctive relief, should Sun prove 

that Azul is infringing. 

(b) The principal factual issues in dispute relating to the remaining 15 of 

Azul’s Declaratory Judgment patent claims are: 

1. Whether the accused Azul products infringe any claim(s) of the 15 

Declaratory Judgment patents for which Sun did not file infringement counterclaims. 

2. Whether any asserted claims are invalid under sections 102, 103 or 112 of the 

Patent Act. 

3. Whether Azul is licensed with respect to one or more of the patents. 

4. Whether any infringement of any valid claim was willful. 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 4 of 15
- 5 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

5. Whether Sun is entitled to damages and/or injunctive relief, should Sun prove 

that Azul is infringing. 

(c ) The principal factual issues in dispute relating to Sun’s trade secret 

counterclaims are: 

1. The identification of the trade secrets that Sun alleges have been 

misappropriated. 

2. Whether the information Sun asserts as trade secret qualifies as a trade secret. 

3. Whether Azul is licensed to any of the trade secrets. 

4. Whether Azul misappropriated any Sun trade secret(s). 

5. Whether Sun is entitled to damages and/or other relief, should Sun establish 

that Azul misappropriated its trade secrets. 

3. The principal legal issues which the parties dispute: 

The parties anticipate that the following legal issues may arise: 

1. The proper construction of the asserted patent claims. 

2. The proper construction and/or applicability of the license agreement between 

Sun and Azul. 

3. The damages and/or other relief that Sun is entitled to, should Sun prove that 

Azul willfully infringed the patents-in-suit. 

4. The damages and/or other relief that Sun is entitled to, should Sun prove that 

Azul misappropriated any Sun trade secret(s). 

4. The other factual issues [e.g., service of process, personal jurisdiction, subject 

matter jurisdiction or venue] which remain unresolved for the reason stated 

below and how the parties propose to resolve those issues: 

During the year-long discussions that preceded the filing of this action, Azul 

contends that Sun raised infringement issues with respect to 20 patents. In Sun’s view, 

however, the discussions regarding Azul’s alleged infringement were limited to 5 patents. 

In its complaint, Azul sought declaratory relief as to all 20 of the patents on which it 

believed Sun had threatened to sue. Sun denies that there is Declaratory Judgment 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 5 of 15
- 6 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

jurisdiction over 15 of the 20 patents. Moreover, in its counterclaim, Sun asserted 

affirmative infringement claims for only 5 of the 20 patents that were discussed before the 

litigation (a 6th patent was raised for the first time in Sun’s counterclaim). 

Because Sun has not asserted claims for infringement of 15 of the 20 Declaratory 

Judgment patents, and in fact denies that subject matter jurisdiction exists over those 15 

patents, Azul believes that the interests of the parties and of judicial economy can best be 

served by dropping those 15 patents from this case. Sun is willing to entertain Azul’s 

proposal, as long as Sun is permitted ample time to take discovery from Azul of sufficient 

scope to determine whether any of the 15 patents should be added to Sun’s counterclaim. 

If Sun and Azul cannot reach agreement on this issue, Azul intends to file a motion seeking 

to amend the complaint to drop the 15 patents from this case. 

5. The parties which have not been served and the reasons: 

None known at this time. 

6. The additional parties which the below-specified parties intend to join and the 

intended time frame for such joinder: 

None known at this time. 

7. The following parties consent to assignment of this case to a United States 

Magistrate Judge for [court or jury] trial: 

The parties do not consent to assignment to a Magistrate Judge for trial. 

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

8. [Please indicate the appropriate response(s).] 

□ The case was automatically assigned to Nonbinding Arbitration at filing and will be 

ready for the hearing by (date)__________________. 

□ The parties have filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting an ADR process 

(specify process): __________________. 

□ The parties filed a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference and the phone conference 

was held on or is scheduled for __________________. 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 6 of 15
- 7 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

X The parties have not filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting an ADR process 

and the ADR process that the parties jointly request [or a party separately requests] is: 

Azul requests that this matter be referred to a mediator at an appropriate time. Sun is 

willing to consider ADR after sufficient discovery has occurred. 

9. Please indicate any other information regarding ADR process or deadline. 

None. 

DISCLOSURES 

10.The parties certify that they have made the following disclosures [list 

disclosures of persons, documents, damage computations and insurance 

agreements]: 

[To be completed after initial disclosures] 

DISCOVERY 

11.The parties agree to the following discovery plan [Describe the plan e.g., any 

limitation on the number, duration or subject matter for various kinds of 

discovery; discovery from experts; deadlines for completing discovery]: 

 The parties have not reached agreement on a discovery plan. Proposals from each 

party are set forth below. 

 A. Azul’s Proposed Discovery Plan: 

Sun is required to serve a pleading that “shall identify the trade secret with 

reasonable particularity,” pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210. This list must be 

served prior to any discovery relating to the trade secrets. Based on the allegations in the 

counterclaim, the trade secrets at least in part overlap with the patents in suit. Accordingly, 

Sun must file its trade secret identification prior to commencing any discovery. Azul 

believes that Sun should file its trade secret list prior to commencing any discovery, or at 

the same time it files its Patent Local Rule 3-1 Disclosure Of Asserted Claims and 

Preliminary Infringement Contentions, 10 days after the initial CMC conference, whichever 

first occurs. 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 7 of 15
- 8 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

Because the identification of trade secrets is such an important event in any trade 

secret case, and because the identification must be with “reasonable particularity,” issues 

surrounding the sufficiency of the identification can sometimes be contentious. Moreover, 

Azul believes there is a basic fairness to requiring a trade secret claimant to identify its 

trade secrets with particularity before it is able to study the designs and development of the 

party it accuses of misappropriation, and thus before requiring discovery of the latter. In 

order to prevent any issues relating to identification of trade secrets from delaying 

discovery, however, Azul believes that the Court should establish an early tentative hearing 

date and procedure for expeditiously resolving any disputes about the sufficiency of Sun’s 

identification of trade secrets. Azul hopes that the parties can resolve any disputes without 

the need for resort to the court, but believes that the availability of an expedited method of 

resolving disputes will promote the efficient handling of this case. 

Azul believes that the license issue can be dispositive of several of the Sun patents 

and, depending on what Sun claims as its trade secrets, some of the trade secret claims as 

well, and, therefore, contemplates bringing an early motion for summary judgment after 

some discovery related to the license issues. The issue is straightforward in Azul’s view, 

because if there were any infringement of the relevant patents, it would result from the use 

of Sun software and/or functionality that Sun provides Azul under license, with the license 

grant including (to the extent of such use) all Sun patents and trade secret or confidential 

information. In Azul’s view, the license issue does not involve claims construction, so 

resolving this issue early may avoid the need for Markman proceedings as to these patents. 

As provided for in Patent L.R. 1-2 and 2-1, Azul also proposes that the claim 

construction process be modified for this case. 

 First, there are at least two patents that Azul suggests be construed in the 

context of motions for summary judgment. For example, the ‘065 patent is directed to 

processing on host and peripheral devices. Azul believes that an issue will be the 

construction of “peripheral devices,” which in Azul’s view the patent consistently describes 

as things like printers, scanners, sound devices, imaging devices and the like. Azul 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 8 of 15
- 9 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

believes that Sun is attempting to read this patent on a computer, not a peripheral device. 

Likewise, in Azul’s view, the ‘491 patent is directed to providing direct communication 

paths among a plurality of processing chips using fabric chips. Azul does not use fabric 

chips or redundant communication paths. The Court should establish a time for hearing 

such motions early in the case and the parties can then direct their efforts to taking 

appropriate discovery and any meet and confer on construction of the one or few terms 

necessary to resolve any such motion. 

 Second, as noted above, Azul believes it is licensed to several of the patents. 

This issue should be set for a relatively early resolution, so that if the motion is granted, the 

parties and the Court need not engage in any unnecessary Markman proceedings or filings. 

 B. Sun’s Proposed Discovery Plan: 

Sun believes that the Counterclaim patent claims and Sun’s claims for trade secret 

misappropriation are distinct claims which can, and should, proceed in parallel. 

1. Patent Counterclaims and Declaratory Judgment patents. 

As to Sun’s patent counterclaims, Sun believes that the standard process and 

timelines set forth in this Court’s Patent Local Rules adequately protect the parties’ rights 

and interests in this case and should govern. Following service of its Disclosure of 

Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Sun is entitled to discovery 

concerning Azul’s products. This discovery will permit Sun to focus its infringement case 

against Azul, and will identify and sharpen the issues that will need to be addressed in the 

claim construction hearing. Sun is greatly concerned that the proposal set forth by Azul 

herein will prevent Sun from taking discovery on its patent-related claims, because Azul 

has proposed that Sun be precluded from taking any discovery until after Azul is satisfied 

with Sun’s disclosure of trade secrets. 

Sun also believes that receipt of Azul’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, as 

required by the Patent Local Rules, will further serve to streamline the case and the issues 

for claim construction. As contemplated in the Patent Local Rules, after receiving Azul’s 

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, Sun believes that the parties will both be positioned to 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 9 of 15
- 10 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

identify disputes surrounding claim construction and to prepare a Joint Claim Construction 

and Prehearing Statement. As explained above, Sun is seriously concerned that Azul’s 

proposed discovery plan will serve only to complicate matters by preventing the parties 

from exchanging discovery and patent-related infringement and invalidity contentions prior 

to addressing claim construction issues. 

After exchanging the discovery and disclosures contemplated in the Patent Local 

Rules and after the Court issues a claim construction order, Sun believes that the parties 

will be best positioned to prepare expert reports and to pursue associated expert discovery. 

Under Sun’s proposal, the experts will have the benefit of the Court’s claim construction 

ruling, which will focus the issues and limit discovery as appropriate. 

As to the 15 Declaratory Judgment patents that Azul put at issue in the complaint for 

which Sun has not filed infringement counterclaims, Sun is amenable to allowing Azul to 

drop the patents from the present action without prejudicial effect such that Sun may reintroduce any of those patents in this case (subject to the traditional rules for amending 

pleadings to add patents). Sun’s willingness to allow Azul to amend the complaint to drop 

these patents is conditioned on Azul’s agreement to provide Sun with sufficient discovery 

and time to determine whether to add any of those patents to Sun’s existing counterclaim. 

Should Azul not agree to Sun’s proposal, Azul should be required to comply with the 

disclosure obligations set forth in Patent Local Rule 3-5(a). 

Finally, as to Azul’s alleged “license” defense, Sun notes that the license at issue is 

limited to particular Sun software – not to hardware or systems. To the extent that Azul 

seeks to read the license more broadly to encompass other technology areas, Sun believes 

that the Court’s anticipated ruling on claim construction as well as other factual discovery 

will bear heavily on the alleged applicability of that license to the instant dispute. As such, 

Sun believes that any motion for summary judgment on that issue will need to be 

sequenced accordingly, and should occur after the parties’ have taken fact discovery and 

the Court has construed the terms of the asserted claims. 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 10 of 15
- 11 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

2. Sun’s Counterclaims of Trade Secret Misappropriation. 

As to Sun’s trade secret counterclaims, Sun believes that after Sun serves its 

disclosure of trade secrets, Azul should be required to promptly respond to Sun’s discovery 

regarding trade secret issues. As with its patent infringement counterclaim, Sun believes 

that the Court’s well-established process and procedure for litigating trade secret claims in 

California should govern. A number of Azul’s employees (including Azul’s CEO, Stephen 

DeWitt) are former Sun employees. Sun is entitled to discover the extent to which these 

former Sun employees misappropriated Sun’s trade secrets. 

Azul’s proposed discovery plan strongly suggests that Azul seeks to have an 

extensive “mini-litigation” concerning Sun’s identification of trade secrets. Such minitrials are not appropriate at the trade secret identification stage of the case. However, Sun 

agrees that, should the parties not agree on the required level of particularity of the Section 

2019.210 trade secret identification, then this issue should be promptly determined by the 

Court, as set forth in Sun’s proposed schedule below. 

3. Realignment of Parties. 

Sun will move at the appropriate time to realign the parties so that Sun, as the patent 

owner, will be in the position of the plaintiff for the purposes of trial. See, e.g., Plumtree 

Software v. Datamize, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26948 at *11 (N.D. Cal.) (finding the party 

asserting infringement to be the appropriate plaintiff and realigning the parties 

accordingly). 

METHODS OF DISCOVERY: 

A. Depositions. 

Each party is limited to 150 hours not including 30(b)(6) witnesses. Each party is 

limited to 60 hours for 30(b)(6) witnesses. No one witness may be deposed for more than 

14 hours. 

B. Interrogatories. 

Each party should be permitted to serve no more than 75 interrogatories on the other 

party. 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 11 of 15
- 12 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

C. Requests for Production. 

Each party is permitted to serve no more than 115 requests for production on the 

other party. 

D. The parties agree that they shall supplement their initial disclosures at 4 

month intervals and sixty (60) days prior to the close of fact discovery. 

TRIAL SCHEDULE 

12. The parties request a trial date as follows: 

Milestone Deadline 

Initial Disclosures August 14, 2006 

Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 

Preliminary Infringement Contentions 

August 18, 2006 

2019.210 Identification of Trade Secrets August 18, 2006 

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (6 

Counterclaim patents) 

September 28, 2006 

Last Day to amend counterclaims to assert 

any of the 15 DJ patents in this lawsuit 

30 days after Azul delivers to Howrey

its commented source code in searchable 

form (under an appropriate protective 

order), architectural documentation (at 

processor, chip and system level), and 

algorithms and flow charts showing 

hardware and software operation. The 

parties agree to negotiate in good faith 

Sun’s need for additional documents 

after review of the foregoing 

information. 

Exchange of proposed terms and claim 

elements for construction 

October 9, 2006 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 12 of 15
- 13 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

Milestone Deadline 

(Subject to the Court’s schedule) hearing 

on sufficiency of trade secret identification

September 28, 2006 

Exchange of proposed preliminary claim 

constructions and preliminary 

identification of extrinsic evidence 

October 30, 2006 

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement 

November 22, 2006 

Completion of Claim Construction 

Discovery 

December 22, 2006 

Opening Claim Construction Briefs January 10, 2006 

Responsive Claim Construction Brief January 26, 2006 

Reply Claim Construction Brief February 2, 2007 

Claim Construction Hearing (Subject to 

the Court’s Schedule) 

February 2007 

Disclosure of Experts April 13, 2007 

Disclosure of Willfulness Opinion and 

related materials 

50 days after Claim Construction Ruling 

per ND Cal. Local Rule 3-8 

Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts May 4, 2007 

Fact Discovery Cut-Off June 1, 2007 

Expert Reports (Burden of Proof) and 

Patent Law experts 

June 15, 2007 

Rebuttal Expert Reports July 13, 2007 

Completion of Expert Depositions August 3, 2007 

Last Day to File Dispositive Motions August 24, 2007 

Hearing on Dispositive Motions (Subject 

to the Court’s schedule) 

September 28, 2007 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 13 of 15
- 14 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

Milestone Deadline 

Trial (Subject to the Court’s Schedule) December 2007 

12.The parties expect that the trial will last for the following number of days: 

It is too early to determine the length of trial. 

DATED: August 31, 2006 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

 By: /s/ Alan H. Blankenheimer 

 ALAN H. BLANKENHEIMER 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 

 Azul Systems, Inc. 

DATED: August 31, 2006 HOWREY LLP 

 By: /s/ Henry C. Bunsow 

 HENRY C. BUNSOW 

 Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant 

 Sun Microsystems, Inc. 

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. In addition the Court orders: 

[The Court may wish to make additional orders, such as: 

a. Referral of the parties to court or private ADR process; 

b. Schedule a further Case Management Conference; 

c. Schedule the time and content of supplemental disclosures; 

d. Specially set motions; 

e. Impose limitations on disclosure or discovery; 

f. Set time for disclosure of identity, background and opinions of experts; 

g. Set deadlines for completing fact and expert discovery; 

h. Set time for parties to meet and confer regarding pretrial submissions; 

I. Set deadline for hearing motions directed to the merits of the case; 

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 14 of 15
- 15 -

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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-01988 CRB 

j. Set deadline for submission of pretrial material; 

k. Set date and time for pretrial conference; 

l. Set a date and time for trial.] 

DATED: 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

September 7, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 30 Filed 09/08/06 Page 15 of 15