Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00903/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00903-1/pdf.json

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

---

-1- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

TODD A. NOAH (SBN 152328) ARNE M. OLSON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

TED K. JOE (SBN 242589) JOSEPH M. KUO (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP DENNIS H. MA (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1450 OLSON & HIERL, LTD. 

San Francisco, California 94111 20 North Wacker Drive 36th Floor 

Tel: (415) 705-6377 Chicago, Illinois 60606-3181 

Fax: (415) 705-6383 Tel.: (312) 580-1180 

E-mail: tnoah@dergnoah.com Fax: (312) 580-1189 

tjoe@dergnoah.com E-mail: aolson@olsonhierl.com jkuo@olsonhierl.com dma@olsonhierl.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff GARNER K. WENG 

ROBOLAW CORPORATION HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS 

 VLAHOS RUDY, LLP 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2173 

Tel: (415) 777-3200 

Fax: (415) 541-9366 

E-mail: gweng@hansonbridgett.com

 Attorneys for Defendant DEVRY, INC. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ROBOLAW CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DEVRY, INC. 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND FED.R.CIV. 26(f) 

REPORT 

 The parties to the above-captioned action submit this Joint Case Management Statement and 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) report and request the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case. 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 9
-2- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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. Jurisdiction: 

 Robolaw Corporation asserts that this Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), in that this case arises under the Patent Laws of the United 

States, 35 U.S.C. §271 et seq. No parties remain to be served. 

2. Facts: 

 This is a patent infringement action brought by plaintiff Robolaw Corporation (“Robolaw”) 

against defendant DeVry, Inc. (“DeVry”) for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,986,664; 

6,086,382; 5,885,087; and 5,618,182, hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Robolaw patents.” The 

Robolaw patents describe and claim computerized methods and systems for improving performance on 

multiple-choice examinations. Robolaw contends that DeVry is making, using, selling and offering for 

sale software for improving performance on multiple-choice examinations (“DeVry software”). 

Robolaw further contends that by making, using, selling and offering for sale its software, DeVry has 

committed direct, contributory and inducement of infringement of one or more claims of the Robolaw 

patents. 

 DeVry alleges that it does not infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the Robolaw patents, 

either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. DeVry also alleges that the claims of the Robolaw 

patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. 

3. Legal Issues: 

 a. The proper construction of the claims of the Robolaw patents; 

b. Whether the DeVry software infringes one or more claims of each of the Robolaw 

patents; 

c. Whether an actual controversy exists between Robolaw and DeVry with respect to 

whether or not the DeVry software manufactured, used, distributed, promoted, endorsed, 

offered for sale and/or sold by DeVry infringe the claims of the Robolaw patents; 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 9
-3- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

d. Whether declaratory judgment is necessary and appropriate at this time, in order to 

determine the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the matters in 

dispute between them; 

e. Whether the claims of the Robolaw patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 

and/or 112; and 

f. Whether Robolaw’s infringement claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. 

4. Narrowing of Issues: 

 All of the legal issues set forth above may be appropriate for decision by motion. 

5. Motions: 

 Robolaw anticipates filing a summary judgment motion on the issue of infringement. DeVry 

anticipates filing summary judgment motions on non-infringement and invalidity. 

6. Discovery: 

 Robolaw intends to pursue discovery directed to structure, operation and sales of DeVry 

software. DeVry intends to pursue discovery directed to the reduction, conception and reduction to 

practice of the claimed invention, licensing of the claimed invention, other litigation by Robolaw 

involving the Robolaw patents, and prior art. The parties agree to the following discovery limits: 

 Interrogatories – 25 

 Depositions – 10 fact/4 expert 

 Requests for Production – no limitation 

 Requests for Admission - 35 

7. Relief: 

 Robolaw seeks a permanent injunction enjoining DeVry from making, using, selling and offering 

for sale the DeVry software. Robolaw also seeks a reasonable royalty, as damages for DeVry’s alleged 

infringement of the Robolaw patents in an amount to be determined at trial and that such damages be 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 9
-4- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

trebled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 due to the alleged willful and deliberate character of this infringement. 

Finally, Robolaw seeks an award of its costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

Defendant DeVry seeks a declaration of non-infringement for each of the Robolaw patents. 

DeVry further seeks a declaration that the asserted claims of the Robolaw patents are invalid. DeVry 

also seeks a declaration that Robolaws allegations of infringement are barred by the doctrine of laches. 

DeVry also seeks an award of its costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

8. ADR: 

 The parties have agreed to refer this case to mediation, and will also pursue out-of-court 

settlement discussions. 

9. Settlement: 

The parties have conducted limited settlement discussions and are willing to continue such 

discussions. 

 

10. Magistrate Judge Trials: 

 The parties consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial. 

11. Trial: 

 This case will be tried by jury and the anticipated length of the trial is approximately 3-5 days. 

At this time, the parties do not believe that it is feasible or desirable to bifurcate issues for trial. The 

parties believe that it may be possible to reduce the length of trial by stipulation, use of summaries or 

statements, or other expedited means of presenting evidence. 

12. Related Cases: 

 There are no related cases pending in this Court. 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 9
-5- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

13. Class Action: 

 Not applicable. 

14. Scheduling: 

 The parties have agreed to the following dates for fact and expert discovery cutoff, expert 

reports, hearing dispositive motions, pretrial conference and trial. 

Close of Fact Discovery March 21, 2008 

Designation of Experts March 21, 2008 

Opening Expert Reports on issues parties 

have burden of proof 

April 25, 2008 

Rebuttal Expert Reports May 30, 2008 

Close of Expert Discovery June 27, 2008 

Last Day for Hearing of Dispositive 

Motions 

August 29, 2008 

Last Day to file Motions in limine November 14, 2008 

Last Day to Meet and confer prior to 

final pre-trial conference November 21, 2008 

Last Day to file opposition to motions in 

limine

December 5, 2008 

Final Pre-trial Conference Statement January 9, 2009 

Final Pre-trial Conference January 16, 2009 

Trial (one week) February 2, 2009 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 5 of 9
-6- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

15. Other Matters: 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 2-1 

a. Proposed modification of the deadlines provided for in the Patent Local Rules, and 

the effect of any such modification on the date and time of the Claim Construction Hearing, if any.

The parties propose the following modifications of the deadlines provided for in the Patent Local 

Rules to avoid holidays and other schedule conflicts and accordingly request that this schedule be 

adopted: 

Event Date 

Last Day for Robolaw’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 

Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-1) and Related 

Documents (Patent L.R. 3-2) 

June 4, 2007 

Last Day for DeVry’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (Patent 

L.R. 3-3) and Related Document Production (Patent L.R. 3-4) 

July 19, 2007 

Last Day for the Exchange of Proposed Terms and Claim Elements 

for Construction (Patent L.R. 4-1(a)) 

July 30, 2007 

Last Day for Exchange of Preliminary Claim Construction and 

Extrinsic Evidence (Patent L.R. 4-2) 

August 20, 2007 

File Joint Claim Construction Statement (Patent L.R. 4-3) September 17, 2007 

Completion of Claim Construction Discovery (Patent L.R. 4-4) October 17, 2007 

Last Day for Robolaw’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Patent 

L.R. 4-5(a)) 

November 1, 2007 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 6 of 9
-7- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

Last Day for DeVry’s Opposing Claim Construction Brief, (Patent 

L.R. 4-5(b)) 

November 15, 2007 

Last Day for Robolaw’s Reply Claim Construction Brief (Patent 

L.R. 4-5(c)) 

November 22, 2007 

Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L.R. 4-6) December 6, 2007 (subject 

to Court’s calendar) 

Final Infringement Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-6(a)) 30 days after service of 

claim construction ruling, or 

approx. (assuming claim 

construction ruling is 

received, i.e.,3 months after 

hearing) 

Final Invalidity Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-6(b)) and Production of 

Willfulness Opinions (Patent L.R. 3-8) 

50 days after service of 

claim construction ruling 

b. Whether the Court will hear live testimony at the Claim Construction Hearing.

The parties believe that whether or not live testimony should be received at the claim 

construction hearing should be determined after the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement 

has been finalized. 

c. The need for and any specific limits on discovery relating to claim construction, 

including depositions of witnesses, including expert witnesses. 

At this time, neither party anticipates a need for limiting the discovery relating to claim 

construction. However, the parties believe that it is impracticable to fully address this issue until after it 

becomes apparent whether, and if so to what extent, disputed issues of claim construction exist. The 

parties suggest that this matter be left over for future consideration. 

d. The order of Presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing. 

The parties suggest that this matter be left over for determination at the Claim Construction 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 7 of 9
-8- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

Prehearing Conference, after it is ascertained whether, and if so to what extent, there are disputed issues 

of claim construction 

e. The scheduling of a Claim Construction Prehearing Conference to be held after the 

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement provided for in Patent L.R. 4-3 has been 

filed.

The parties agree that it would be useful to have a Claim Construction Prehearing Conference, 

after the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement has been finalized, to address the subjects 

in (2), (3), and (4), above, and any other matters relating to the procedures at the Claim Construction 

Hearing. 

16. Disclosure of Interested Parties: 

 The parties submit that other than the named parties, there are no other parties that have an 

interest in subject matter at issue in this case. 

17. Initial Disclosures: 

 The parties plan to make their respective initial disclosures on or before May 16, 2007. 

Dated: May 16, 2007 DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP 

 By: /s/ Todd A. Noah 

 Todd A. Noah 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 ROBOLAW CORPORATION 

 OLSON & HIERL, LTD. 

Dated: May 16, 2007 By: /s/ Arne M. Olson 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 DEVRY, INC. 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 8 of 9
-9- 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

Case No. C 07 0903 JL 

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 

 I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained 

from Arne M. Olson. 

/s/ Todd A. Noah 

Case 3:07-cv-00903-JL Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 9 of 9