Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02737/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02737-15/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 LSI CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

LSI CORPORATION AND AGERE

SYSTEMS, INC.,

Counterclaimants,

 v.

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Counterdefendants. /

No. C 09-02737 WHA

REQUEST TO POTENTIAL

RULE 706 EXPERTS

In addition to the fee proposals requested at yesterday’s hearing, the two Rule 706 expert

candidates should advise the Court (in the same letter) whether they have written any previous

expert reports or provided expert testimony that, in their view, would unduly restrict their

freedom of movement in arriving at an opinion in this case. The candidates should also advise the

Court if they have any pending expert arguments in other matters that would do likewise. The

parties shall ensure that the two expert candidates receive this request in due time.

Dated: March 4, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02737-WHA Document 104 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 1