Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03262/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03262-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIMING OF IN LIMINE MOTIONS RELATED TO DEFENDANTS' DAMAGES 

EXPERTS

CASE NO.C02-3262 DLJ (EMC) 

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP 

MARK T. JANSEN (State Bar No. 114896) 

PAUL F. KIRSCH (State Bar No. 127446) 

ANGUS M. MACDONALD (State Bar No. 212526) 

TALI L. ALBAN (State Bar No. 233694) 

Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 576-0200 

Facsimile: (415) 576-0300 

Email: mtjansen@townsend.com, pkirsch@townsend.com 

 ammacdonald@townsend.com, tlalban@townsend.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK T. SHUM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

FRANK T. SHUM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTEL CORPORATION, JEAN-MARC 

VERDIELL, and LIGHTLOGIC, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C02-3262 DLJ (EMC)

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING TIMING OF IN 

LIMINE MOTIONS RELATED TO 

DEFENDANTS' DAMAGES 

EXPERTS 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 4:02-cv-03262-DLJ Document 774 Filed 10/17/08 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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIMING OF IN LIMINE MOTIONS RELATED TO DEFENDANTS' 

DAMAGES EXPERTS 

CASE NO.C02-3262 DLJ (EMC) 2

WHEREAS, on April 3, 2008, this Court entered an Amended Order for Pretrial Preparation 

setting the dates for: (1) the parties to complete fact discovery by July 28, 2008, (2) plaintiff Frank T. 

Shum (“Shum”) to serve expert reports by August 1, 2008, (3) defendants Intel Corporation (“Intel”), 

Jean-Marc Verdiell (“Verdiell”) and LightLogic, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) to serve expert 

reports by September 5, 2008, (4) the close of expert discovery on October 3, 2008, (5) the parties to 

file motions in limine by October 10, 2008, and (6) the parties to file oppositions to motions in limine

by October 17, 2008; 

WHEREAS, on July 31, 2008, this Court entered a Stipulation and Order Regarding Expert 

Discovery Deadlines (Docket No. 608) for: (1) Shum to serve expert reports by August 8, 2008, 

(2) Defendants to serve expert reports by September 12, 2008, and (3) the close of expert discovery on 

October 8, 2008; 

WHEREAS, in light of uncompleted fact discovery and the recognized need to further extend 

the dates for expert reports going to damages, on August 8, 2008, this Court entered a Stipulation and 

Order Regarding expert discovery deadlines (Docket No. 626) for: (1) the date for defendants to 

complete production of documents pursuant to Magistrate Judge Chen’s Order Re Hearing on July 23, 

2008 (Docket No. 604) may be extended to August 15, 2008; (2) the date for Shum to complete his 

additional depositions (if any) of Intel and Verdiell may be extended to August 22, 2008; (3) the date 

for Shum to serve his expert reports may be extended from August 8, 2008 to September 2, 2008; (4) 

the date for defendants to serve their expert reports may be extended from September 12, 2008 to 

October 2, 2008; (5) the date for the close of expert discovery may be extended from October 8, 2008 

to October 17, 2008; (6) the date for Shum to file motions in limine (if any) relating to defendants’ 

expert reports served on the dates specified above may be extended from October 10, 2008 to October 

20, 2008, (7) the dates for Shum to file all other motions in limine remains unchanged, and (8) the date 

for defendants to file oppositions to Shum’s motions in limine relating to defendants’ expert reports 

served on the dates specified above may be extended from October 17, 2008 to October 24, 2008; and 

WHEREAS, on October 2, 2008 the Court issued a Notice continuing the Pretrial Conference 

scheduled for October 24, 2008 until November 4, 2008, and counsel for the parties, recognizing that 

Case 4:02-cv-03262-DLJ Document 774 Filed 10/17/08 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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIMING OF IN LIMINE MOTIONS RELATED TO DEFENDANTS' 

DAMAGES EXPERTS 

CASE NO.C02-3262 DLJ (EMC) 3

it is not practical for Plaintiff to file his motions in limine going to defense damages expert witnesses 

by October 20 given that the damages expert depositions are not scheduled to occur until October 21 

and 22, 2008, counsel for Shum and counsel for defendants stipulate and agree that: (1) the date for 

Shum to file motions in limine (if any) relating to defendants’ damages expert reports served on the 

dates specified above may be extended from October 20, 2008 to October 24, 2008, and (2) the date 

for defendants to file oppositions to Shum’s motions in limine relating to defendants’ damages expert 

reports served on the dates specified above may be extended from October 24, 2008 to October 31, 

2008; and 

WHEREAS, allowing the dates of expert discovery to be extended as set forth immediately 

above will not affect any of the other pretrial dates, including the scheduled November 4 and 6, 2008 

Pretrial Conferences or the November 10, 2008 trial date. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED among Shum and 

defendants, by and through their respective counsel, that: 

1. Shum’s motions in limine (if any) relating to defendants’ damages expert reports served 

on October 2 may be filed on or before October 24, 2008; and 

2. Defendants’ oppositions to Shum’s motions in limine relating to the defendants’ 

damages expert reports specified hereinabove may be filed on or before October 31, 2008. 

DATED: October 17, 2008 TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP 

By: /s/ Mark T. Jansen

MARK T. JANSEN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK T. SHUM 

DATED: October 17, 2008 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

By: /s/ Ragesh K. Tangri

RAGESH K. TANGRI 

Attorneys for Defendants INTEL CORPORATION, 

LIGHTLOGIC, INC. and JEAN-MARC VERDIELL 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 17, 2008 

HON. D. LOWELL JENSEN 

JUDGE OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

Case 4:02-cv-03262-DLJ Document 774 Filed 10/17/08 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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIMING OF IN LIMINE MOTIONS RELATED TO DEFENDANTS' 

DAMAGES EXPERTS 

CASE NO.C02-3262 DLJ (EMC) 4

GENERAL ORDER ATTESTATION 

I, Mark T. Jansen, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIMING OF IN LIMINE MOTIONS 

RELATED TO DEFENDANTS' DAMAGES EXPERTS. In compliance with General Order 45, 

X.B., I hereby attest that Ragesh K. Tangri has concurred in this filing. 

 /s/ Mark T. Jansen

MARK T. JANSEN 

Case 4:02-cv-03262-DLJ Document 774 Filed 10/17/08 Page 4 of 4