Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00990/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00990-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

- 1 - AOA0163.DOC;1 

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 CONTINUING CASE SCHEDULE 

Case Nos. C 05-00636 SBA and C-05-00990 SBA

THOMAS E. MOORE III (Bar # 115107) 

TOMLINSON ZISKO LLP 

200 Page Mill Road, Second Floor 

Palo Alto, California 94306 

Telephone: (650) 325-8666 

Facsimile: (650) 324-1808 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, DIGITAL IMPACT, INC. 

 

ARTHUR M. DRESNER (pro hac vice) 

REED SMITH LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 521-5404 

Facsimile: (212) 521-5450 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC. 

 

L.J. CHRIS MARTINIAK (Bar # 64847)

HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

333 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94014 

Telephone: (415) 772-6000 

Facsimile: (415) 772-6268 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

YESMAIL, INC. 

See Attachment A for additional counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Defendant. 

RELATED CASES: 

NO. C05 00636 SBA 

NO. C05 00990 SBA 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE SCHEDULE 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 28 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - AOA0163.DOC;1 

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 CONTINUING CASE SCHEDULE 

Case Nos. C 05-00636 SBA and C-05-00990 SBA

 THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, by and through their respective counsel, to the 

matters set forth below based on the following: 

 1. Pursuant to their earlier representations to this Court, the parties desire to utilize the 

services of a magistrate judge in order to try to settle each of the two related cases before engaging 

in discovery and incurring substantial litigation costs. On November 16, 2005, the Court assigned 

the cases to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for purposes of settlement. The assignment 

order specified that Judge Zimmerman must complete his efforts on or before November 28, 2006. 

 2. Judge Zimmerman held a status conference with the parties on December 5, 2005. 

During that conference, Judge Zimmerman explained that his approach to settling patent cases 

requires several months and that this approach was within the parameters of the Court's assignment 

order. 

 3. The parties' desire is to have Judge Zimmerman try his approach. His approach 

conflicts, however, with the current Case Management Order, which sets deadlines for the case 

beginning on December 16, 2005. 

WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate to the following: 

1. Pending the parties' attempt to settle the case, discovery in both related cases shall 

be stayed. If resolution of either case is not successful, the court will then conduct a limited “miniMarkman” proceeding in accordance with the rest of this order. At that time, limited discovery 

may be conducted solely as to the issues presented in that proceeding without prejudice to 

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

YESMAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 28 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - AOA0163.DOC;1 

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 CONTINUING CASE SCHEDULE 

Case Nos. C 05-00636 SBA and C-05-00990 SBA

subsequent discovery on all relevant issues if the case is not resolved by the mini-Markman 

proceeding. 

2. The Court will hold a "mini-Markman" hearing on October 30, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. 

concurrently in both related cases. The purpose of the "mini-Markman" hearing will be to construe 

the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,449,634, with respect to the sole issue of whether the patent's 

claims require steps from independent parties. 

 3. The schedule of submissions prior to that hearing is set forth below: 

Deadline Activity

June 16, 2006 Exchange of Proposed Terms and Claim 

Elements for Construction (Pat. L.R. 4-1). 

The parties are to limit the terms to be 

construed to no more than six terms. 

June 23, 2006 Exchange of Preliminary Claim 

Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence 

(Pat. L.R. 4-2). 

July 14, 2006 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement (Pat. L.R. 4-3). 

August 14, 2006 Claim Construction Discovery closes. 

August 28, 2006 Bigfoot and Yesmail file their ”miniMarkman” briefs. 

September 11, 2006 Digital Impact files its opposition papers. 

September 18, 2006 Bigfoot and Yesmail file their reply 

papers. 

October 30, 2006 Mini-Markman hearing 

3. The parties anticipate that discovery in this case will require the disclosure of 

substantial amounts of confidential, proprietary and other commercially sensitive information, and 

therefore will seek the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order in each related case. All other 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 28 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - AOA0163.DOC;1 

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 CONTINUING CASE SCHEDULE 

Case Nos. C 05-00636 SBA and C-05-00990 SBA

proceedings and disclosures will be deferred until after the Court issues its mini-Markman order. If 

that order does not dispose of the case, the parties may propound discovery on any of the remaining 

issues in the case without further leave of Court. 

4. After issuing its mini-Markman order, the court shall, if necessary, set a date for a 

further case management conference for the purpose of scheduling dates for the balance of the 

case. 

DATED: December 14, 2005 TOMLINSON ZISKO LLP

 BY /s/ Thomas E. Moore III 

 Thomas E. Moore III 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter- 

 defendant, DIGITAL IMPACT, INC. 

DATED: December 14, 2005 REED SMITH LLP

 BY /s/ Arthur M. Dresner 

 Arthur M. Dresner 

 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

 BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC. 

DATED: December 14, 2005 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

 BY /s/ L.J. Chris Martiniak 

 L.J. Chris Martiniak 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, 

YESMAIL, INC. 

ORDER

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/3/06 

 HON. SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 28 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 4