Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885-72/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN 

PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

[All counsel listed on signature page] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REQUESTING THAT THE COURT 

STAY CERTAIN PENDING 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE

PRETRIAL DEADLINES 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 948 Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 7
STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN 

PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and 

Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile, Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft”), through counsel, 

hereby respectfully file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the Court: (1) stay the 

pending Philips/Microsoft Summary Judgment and Daubert motions; and (2) vacate all existing 

pretrial deadlines in the Philips/Microsoft case (listed below and set forth in Dkt. No. 573).1

 Philips 

and Microsoft recently have executed a settlement agreement regarding all claims between them in 

this action. However, there are some post-execution aspects of that settlement agreement that must 

be performed before the Philips/Microsoft case can be formally dismissed. Philips and Microsoft 

expect to submit a stipulated dismissal of the claims at issue within thirty (30) calendar days from 

the date of entry of the Court’s order on this Stipulation. 

It is well-settled that a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket and 

manage its own calendar. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also, e.g., 

Agcaoili v. Gustafson, 844 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A trial court has the power to control its 

own calendar.”); CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts possess 

“inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will 

promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); Mediterranean 

Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The trial court 

possesses the inherent power to control its own docket and calendar.”). 

Philips and Microsoft hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

WHEREAS, Philips and Microsoft recently have executed a settlement agreement regarding 

all claims between them in this Action; however, as noted, there are some post-execution aspects of 

that settlement agreement that must be performed before the case can be formally dismissed; and 

WHEREAS, Philips and Microsoft believe that staying the below-listed pending Summary 

Judgment and Daubert motions and vacating existing pretrial deadlines is appropriate given the 

1

 This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order does not concern the Summary Judgment and 

Daubert motions between Philips and Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer 

International (collectively, “ASUS”) (Dkt. Nos. 711, 713, 724, 742, 751, and 766), which remain 

pending. This Stipulation does concern Microsoft’s and ASUS’s joint Daubert motion to exclude 

the expert opinions of Michael E. Tate (Dkt. No. 742) but only as between Philips and Microsoft. 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 948 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 7
STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN 

PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

parties’ executed settlement agreement, and will allow Philips and Microsoft to avoid costly and 

unnecessary further litigation between them and will additionally conserve judicial resources by 

avoiding needlessly further burdening the Court’s resources in deciding these motions and 

addressing pretrial filings in the Philips/Microsoft case. 

NOW, THEREFORE, Philips and Microsoft, through counsel, hereby stipulate and 

respectfully request that the Court stay the following Summary Judgment and Daubert motions as 

indicated and vacate the existing pretrial deadlines (listed in full below): 

Pending Summary Judgment Motions To Be Stayed In Their Entirety: 

Docket Number Docket Text 

703 Motion to Strike Regarding Philips’ Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of 

Dr. Nisha Mody (Damages) filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips 

Corporation 

706 Motion to Strike Motion to Exclude Untimely Theories in Dr. Mackenzie’s 

Rebuttal Expert Report Served on Behalf of Microsoft Concerning U.S. 

Patent No. RE44,913 filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips 

Corporation 

709 Motion To Exclude Certain Opinions in Dr. Rubin’s Opening and Rebuttal 

Expert Reports Served on Behalf of Microsoft Concerning Patent No. 

9,436,809 filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips Corporation 

718 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Microsoft Corporation 

720 MOTION to Strike Expert Opinions filed by Microsoft Corporation, 

Microsoft Mobile Inc. 

744 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Affirmative Defenses 

raised by the Microsoft Defendants filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. 

Philips Corporation 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 948 Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 7
STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN 

PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

Pending Summary Judgment Motion To Be Stayed Solely as Between Philips and Microsoft: 

Docket Number Docket Text 

742 Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Michael E. Tate (Damages) by 

Microsoft and ASUS filed by Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc., 

ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International 

Pretrial Deadlines: 

Event Date 

Last Day to Meet and Confer re: settlement, 

joint pretrial filings, and narrowing issues for 

trial 

1/7/2020 

Exhibit Sets Exchange (Each party serves every 

other party one set of proposed exhibits, charts, 

schedules, summaries, diagrams, and other 

documents to be used in case-in-chief (not 

including demonstratives) 

1/7/2020 

Witness List Exchange (names and brief 

description of subject matter of testimony – 

casein-chief only) 

Deposition/Interrogatory/RFA Designation 

Exchange (case-in-chief only) 

1/7/2020 

Motions in Limine 1/14/2020 

File Joint Pretrial Statement, Jury Instructions, 

voir dire questions, verdict forms, statement of 

case, trial briefs, and oppositions to Motion in 

Limine 

1/21/2020 

Final Pretrial Conference 2/11/2020 at 3:00PM 

Lastly, should the stipulating parties fail to submit a stipulated dismissal of the claims at 

issue within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of entry of the Court’s order below counsel will 

meet and confer and approach the Court jointly for guidance at that time, if needed. 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 948 Filed 01/03/20 Page 4 of 7
STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN 

PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

Dated: January 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Chris Holland (SBN 164053) 

Lori L. Holland (SBN 202309) 

HOLLAND LAW LLP 

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 200-4980 

Fax: (415) 200-4989 

cholland@hollandlawllp.com 

lholland@hollandlawllp.com 

 /s/ Michael P. Sandonato

Michael P. Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) 

John D. Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 

Christopher M. Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Natalie D. Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jason M. Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) 

Stephen K. Yam (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jonathan M. Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) 

Joshua D. Calabro admitted pro hac vice) 

Daniel A. Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) 

Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 

Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) 

Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 

VENABLE LLP 

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York, 10104 

+1 (212) 218-2100

+1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile

philipsprosecutionbar@venable.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips 

N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation

/s/ Christina McCullough 

Judith Jennison (Bar No. 165929) Tiffany P. Cunningham (pro hac vice) 

Christina McCullough (Bar No. 245944) PERKINS COIE LLP 

Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Bar No. 109506) 131 South Dearborn, Suite 1700 

Antoine McNamara (Bar No. 261980) Chicago, Illinois, 60603 

Theresa H. Nguyen (Bar No. 284581) +1 (312) 324-8400

PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (312) 324-9400 facsimile

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900

Seattle, Washington, 98101 Sarah E. Fowler (Bar No. 264838) 

+1 (206) 359-8000 PERKINS COIE LLP 

+1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile 3150 Porter Drive 

msft-philipsteam@perkinscoie.com Palo Alto, CA 94304 

+1 (650) 838-4300

Chad Campbell (Bar No. 258723) +1 (650) 838-4350

PERKINS COIE LLP 

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Patrick McKeever 

Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 PERKINS COIE LLP 

+1 (602) 351-8000 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 

+1 (602) 648-7000 facsimile San Diego, California, 92130-2080 

+1 (858) 720-5722

+1 (858) 720-5822 facsimile

Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants-in-Intervention Microsoft Corp. and 

Microsoft Mobile, Inc.

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 948 Filed 01/03/20 Page 5 of 7
STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN 

PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 

I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed 

above to execute and file this document on their behalf. 

Dated: January 2, 2020 /s/ Chris Holland 

Chris Holland 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 948 Filed 01/03/20 Page 6 of 7
STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN 

PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

 ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING AND PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 1/3/2020 

Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 948 Filed 01/03/20 Page 7 of 7