Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02749/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02749-0/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

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE – Case No. C 05-2749 CW

JARED BOBROW (Bar No. 133712)

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Silicon Valley Office

201 Redwood Shores Parkway

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Telephone: +1.650.802.3000

Facsimile: +1.650.802.3100

E-mail: Jared.Bobrow@Weil.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CUTERA, INC.

ALAN H. BLANKENHEIMER (Bar No. 218713) 

DANIEL N. KASSABIAN (Bar No. 215249)

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

333 Bush Street

San Francisco, CA 94104-2878

Telephone: +1.415.772.6000

Facsimile: +1.415.772.6268

E-mail: Alan.Blankenheimer@HellerEhrman.com

Daniel.Kassabian@HellerEhrman.com

Attorneys for Defendants

PALOMAR MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES and

THE GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

CUTERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALOMAR MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC., and THE GENERAL HOSPITAL 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No.: C 05-2749 CW

ORDER RE STIPULATION TO 

STAY CASE PENDING 

RESOLUTION OF CUTERA, INC.’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS IN

RELATED PENDING ACTION

Judge: The Honorable Claudia Wilken

Case 4:05-cv-02749-CW Document 10 Filed 09/02/05 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE – Case No. C 05-2749 CW

STIPULATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-11, Plaintiff Cutera, Inc. (“Cutera”) on the 

one hand and Defendants Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. and the General Hospital 

Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) on the other hand, through their respective counsel 

of record, state as follows:

WHEREAS,

1. On April 7, 2005, Defendants filed a complaint in the United States District 

Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. and 

The General Hospital Corporation v. Cutera, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-CV-10683-RWZ 

(“the Massachusetts Action”), which alleges that Cutera infringes and induces infringement 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,595,568 (“the ’568 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,735,844 (“the ’844 

patent”) by making, using, selling or offering for sale products using pulsed light 

technology for hair removal; 

2. On July 6, 2005, Cutera filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) 

and 12(b)(3) (“the Motion”) in the Massachusetts Action, claiming that the court lacks 

jurisdiction over Cutera, Defendants have opposed the Motion, and the Motion is currently 

under consideration by the court of the District of Massachusetts;

3. On July 6, 2005, Cutera filed the instant declaratory judgment action in this 

Court, which seeks a ruling that its pulsed light products for hair removal do not infringe the 

’568 patent and the ’844 patent, and that these two patents are invalid and unenforceable 

due to inequitable conduct; and

4. On August 22, 2005, counsel for Cutera and counsel for Defendants met and 

conferred as per the parties’ obligations pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-10(b), 

during which the parties agreed that because the Motion before the court for the District of 

Massachusetts is still under consideration, judicial economy is best served by seeking a stay 

from this Court pending that court’s resolution of the Motion, and the parties further agreed 

that such stay would be without prejudice to Defendants to seek a further stay of the instant 

action if Cutera’s Motion is denied.

Case 4:05-cv-02749-CW Document 10 Filed 09/02/05 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE – Case No. C 05-2749 CW

THEREFORE, Cutera and Defendants NOW STIPULATE AND AGREE: 

A. To stay the instant action pending the resolution of Cutera’s Motion in the 

Massachusetts Action; 

B. That such a stay is without prejudice to Defendants to seek further stay if 

Cutera’s Motion is denied; and 

C. That Defendants shall have ten (10) days from the date of the entry of an 

order on Cutera’s Motion, by the court for the District of Massachusetts, to file an Answer 

to the Complaint in this action.

Dated: September 2, 2005 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

By

JARED BOBROW

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CUTERA, INC.

Dated: September 2, 2005 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

By /s/ DANIEL N. KASSABIAN

Attorneys for Defendants

PALOMAR MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES and 

THE GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION

Case 4:05-cv-02749-CW Document 10 Filed 09/02/05 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE – Case No. C 05-2749 CW

ORDER

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, except that the Case 

Management Conference will remain on calendar on Nov. 4. If there has been no 

ruling in the Massachusetts case by then, the parties may stipulate to continue that 

date for 60 days.

Dated: 9/2/05 /s/ CLAUDIA WILKEN

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE

SF 1182998 v2

 (37697.0123)

Case 4:05-cv-02749-CW Document 10 Filed 09/02/05 Page 4 of 4