Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04411/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04411-10/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 87 Filed 03/13/15 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 patents 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 24, 2014 the parties jointly requested a continuance of the Case Management 

Conference. ECF No. 81. The Court granted the parties’ request and rescheduled the Case 

Management Conference to November 13, 2014. ECF No. 82.

On February 28, 2014 the Swiss Federal Court dismissed Cepheid’s appeal in its entirety. 

The Arbitration is proceeding in accordance with the schedule set by the Arbitral Tribunal, which 

provides for an evidentiary hearing.

In light of the circumstances, the parties do not believe it is appropriate to lift the Court’s stay 

at this time. Cepheid will contact the Court if it believes that a lift of the stay is appropriate. 

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

currently scheduled for March 26, 2015, be continued until September 24, 2015, or any other date 

Case 3:12-cv-04411-EMC Document 87 Filed 03/13/15 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

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: March 12, 2015 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.

COOLEY LLP

/s/ Mark F. Lambert

Mark F. Lambert

Attorney for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

Case 3:12-cv-04411-EMC Document 87 Filed 03/13/15 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

3/13/15

The CMC is reset for 9/24/15 at 9:30 a.m. A joint CMC Statement shall be filed by 

9/17/15. 

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 87 Filed 03/13/15 Page 4 of 4