Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Agilent Technologies, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Elan Microelectronics Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-04-05385 JW

SCHEDULING ORDER PATENT CASES

The Court conducted a Case Management Conference on January 9, 2006. Present were

Samuel K. Lu, counsel for Agilent and Elizabeth H. Rader, Gary C. Ma, and Michael Kim, counsel

for Elan. 

This case involves the same two patents ('780 and '804) as in the case of PixArt Imaging Inc.

v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., which is also currently pending before the Court. With respect to the

'780 patent, the Court has already held a Markman hearing and construed the claims asserted. 

Counsel for Elan represented that Elan has a slight disagreement with the Court's Markman Order of

the '780 and that Elan has some additional terms it wishes to have the Court construe. Agilent does

not believe there is a need for a second Markman hearing on the '780 patent. The Court grants

Elan's request for a hearing on any residual claims or issues with respect to the '780 patent and sets

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 50 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 5
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 2

the hearing for March 16, 2006 from 1 pm - 4pm. With respect of the '804, the parties jointly

request that they be given the opportunity to participate in the Markman hearing currently scheduled

in the PixArt litigation for March 17, 2006 from 1 pm - 4 pm. The Court also grants this request

and orders as follows: 

A. Case Tutorial

1. At this time, the Court does not need a tutorial in light of what has been done in the

PixArt litigation. If needed, the Court will issue an order in that respect.

B. Initial Disclosures

2. According to the parties' joint case management statement, the parties have completed

initial disclosures required by Patent L.R. 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4(b).

C. Claim Construction Proceedings

6. According to the parties' joint case management statement, the parties have complied with

Patent L.R. 4-1 and 4-2.

8. No later than January 16, 2006, the parties must file a Joint Claim Construction

Statement and Prehearing Statement pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3. The statement shall be presented

in the following chart format:

Disputed Term Plaintiff’s Proposed

Construction

Defendant’s Proposed

Construction

The parties shall express their proposed construction in a manner suitable for incorporation into a

jury instruction. 

9. Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-4, all discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses,

relating to claim construction must be completed by January 23, ,2006.

10. The Court will hold Claim Construction Hearings on March 16 and March 17, 2006

from 1 pm - 4 pm. At the hearing the Court will consider only intrinsic evidence to interpret the

disputed claims, i.e., the claims themselves, the written description portion of the specification and

the prosecution history. Pertinent portions of the intrinsic evidence should be highlighted and

indexed to the disputed claim language. No testimony will be allowed, unless the Court orders

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 50 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 5
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

otherwise, based upon a timely motion noticed for hearing at least 10 days prior to the Claim

Hearing by any party wishing to present testimony. In addition, unless the Court orders otherwise,

the Court Reporter will make a digital video of the proceedings. Any party wishing a copy of the

transcript or digital video may contract the Court Reporter.

11. Notwithstanding Patent L.R. 4-5, the parties shall comply with the following briefing

schedule:

a. Opening Brief: Agilent must serve and file its opening brief and supporting

evidence on or before February 9, 2006. Accompanying the brief must be a proposed jury

instruction which incorporates the language which the party contends should be adopted in

construing the claims.

b. Responsive Brief: Elan must serve and file its responsive brief and supporting

evidence on or before February 23, 2006. Accompanying the brief must be a proposed jury

instruction which incorporates the language which the party contends should be adopted in

construing the claims.

c. Reply Brief: Agilent must serve and file any reply brief and supporting

evidence on or before March 2, 2006.

D. Further Case Management Order

12. At the conclusion of the Claim Construction Hearing, the Court will set a date and time

for a further Case Management Conference to schedule subsequent events in the case. 

E. Procedure Regarding Dispositive Motions in Patent Cases

13. Prior to filing any dispositive motion, the moving party must first advise the Court and

opposing counsel of its intention to do so by filing and serving a request for a case management

conference regarding dispositive motion(s). The request must outline the undisputed factual basis

and legal basis of the proposed motion(s) and a proposed briefing and hearing schedule. The Court

may schedule a case management conference to establish the schedule for briefing and hearing the

motion(s) in an orderly and efficient manner or may issue an order adopting the schedule proposed

by the parties.

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 50 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

F. Electronic Storage of Exhibits

14. This Court has available a digital and video electronic evidence presentation system. 

The parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with the system, and to meet and confer about

whether the case will involve voluminous documentation. If so, as the parties identify documentary

material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the parties are ordered to electronically store

these materials in a fashion which will facilitate displaying them electronically during the trial. The

parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 30-2(b) requires sequential numbering of exhibits during

depositions and that numbering must be maintained for those exhibits throughout the litigation. 

Each proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for identification. All exhibits shall be marked with

numerals. The parties shall meet and confer on a division which will avoid duplication (e.g.,

Plaintiff: 1-99,000; Defendant #1: 100,000-299,999; Defendant #2: 300,000-500,000).

Dated: January 11, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 50 Filed 01/11/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alan J. Heinrich aheinrich@irell.com

David Craig McPhie dmcphie@irell.com

Elizabeth H. Rader erader@akingump.com

Gary C. Ma gma@akingump.com

Hsin-Yi Cindy Feng cfeng@akingump.com

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com

Richard Elgar Lyon rlyon@irell.com

Samuel Kai Lu slu@irell.com

Sang Hui Michael Kim mkim@akingump.com

Dated: January 11, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:__/s/ JW Chambers_______________

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 50 Filed 01/11/06 Page 5 of 5