Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04858/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04858-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

Tammy J. Terry (CSB No. 230283)

OSHA LIANG LLP

909 Fannin Street, Ste. 3500

Houston, TX 77010

Tel.: 713.228.8600

Fax: 713.228.8778

terry@oshaliang.com

Michael A. Molano (CSB No. 171057)

MAYER BROWN LLP

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300

3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306

Tel.: 650.331.2035

Fax: 650.331.4535

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Standard Innovation Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

STANDARD INNOVATION CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LELOI AB, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

REVISED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Judge: Hon. Beth Freeman

Date: December 17, 2015

Time: 11:00 am

Courtroom: 3, 5th Floor

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Civil Local Rule 16-9, this Court’s 

“Standing Order Re Civil Cases” ¶ C.2., and the “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern 

District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement,” Plaintiff Standard 

Innovation Corp. (“Standard Innovation”) and Defendants LELOi AB, and LELO Inc.

1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:15-cv-01362-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 13
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

(collectively “LELO Defendants”)1 respectfully submit this Revised Joint Case Management 

Statement and Proposed Order in the connection with the Case Management Conference (“CMC”)

in this matter pursuant to the Court’s instruction during the Case Management Conference on

December 17, 2015.

1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE 

This is a case for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 

U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a) and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. In addition, in connection 

with its counterclaims, the LELO Defendants have invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), 2201 and 2202. 

Defendants LELOi AB and LELO Inc. have answered and appeared and do not challenge 

subject matter jurisdiction, but make no representations on behalf of any other named defendant. 

Foreign defendants LELO (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Armocon 

Technology Co. (collectively, “Foreign Defendants”) have not yet been served nor have they 

appeared; however, Standard Innovation’s Motion for Order Permitting Service of Foreign 

Defendants Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(h)(2) is currently pending (Doc. No. 111). The LELO 

Defendants oppose this motion.

One additional defendant sought to be added by Standard Innovation’s proposed Second 

Amended Complaint, Intimina, Inc., has not yet been served, and service is subject to Standard 

Innovation’s pending Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 83), which 

is opposed by the LELO Defendants (Doc. No. 96).

2. FACTS

A. Brief Description of the Facts

This is a patent infringement case related to the ITC investigation, In the Matter of Certain 

Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-823. Plaintiff Standard 

1 The only defendants who have answered or appeared are LELOi AB and LELO Inc. Throughout 

this Statement, “LELO Defendants” only refers to Defendants LELOi AB and LELO Inc. LELOi 

AB and LELO Inc. make no representations on behalf of any other named defendant.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 2

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

 

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 13
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

Innovation alleges that the LELO Defendants infringe (and have infringed) U.S. Patent No. 7,931, 

605 (“the ’605 Patent”) by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing into the United 

States certain couples massager devices. In its Final Determination, the ITC found that some of 

LELO Defendants’ products infringed the ’605 Patent while other products did not infringe, and 

that the prior art presented by the respondents in the ITC proceeding did not render the patent 

invalid. Having found infringement, the ITC issued cease and desist orders as well as a General 

Exclusion Order banning the importation into the United States, selling, or selling after 

importation any infringing products. The ITC’s orders went into effect on August 17, 2013. The 

LELO Defendants appealed the ITC’s Final Determination to the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit on multiple grounds. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s Final 

Determination holding that Standard Innovation had not met the economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement under Section 337 (a quasi-jurisdictional requirement unique to the ITC). 

The Federal Circuit did not address the non-infringement and invalidity issues raised on appeal. 

Due to the Federal Circuit’s reversal, the ITC rescinded its General Exclusion Order and cease and 

desist orders on July 21, 2015.

On October 21, 2013, the LELO Defendants filed a request for ex parte reexamination of 

the ’605 Patent in the USPTO challenging the validity of most claims of the ’605 Patent. The 

USPTO granted the request on November 22, 2013, but ultimately confirmed the patentability of 

all challenged claims without requiring any amendments to the claims. 

On August 4, 2015, the parties timely filed a Joint Status Report and the stay was 

effectively lifted the following day. On August 26, 2015, Standard Innovation amended its 

complaint to add foreign defendants LELO (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Armocon 

Technology Co. Standard Innovation filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 

Complaint to add Intimina, Inc., as a party on October 9, 2015 (Doc. No. 83).

On October 21, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas 

granted LELO Defendants’ motion to transfer (Doc. No. 85) and this case was transferred to this 

District on October 23, 2015 (Doc. No. 86). 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 3

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 13
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

The LELO Defendants allege that they do not infringe any claim of the ’605 Patent, and 

that the ’605 Patent is invalid. In addition, the LELO Defendants have asserted counterclaims for 

a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the claims of the ’605 Patent.

B. Principal Factual Issues which the Parties Dispute

Based on the current pleadings, the principal factual issues in dispute are:

(1) Whether the accused products infringe one or more of the claims of the ’605 Patent.

(2) Whether the ’605 Patent is valid. 

(3) Whether the ’605 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

(4) If Standard Innovation is entitled to damages, the amount of Standard Innovation’s 

damages for any infringement of a valid claim of the ’605 Patent.

3. LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE 

The principle legal issues in dispute are: 

(1) The proper construction of the disputed terms in the asserted claims of the ’605 Patent.

(2) Whether the LELO Defendants have been or are now infringing the ’605 Patent.

(3) Whether Standard Innovation is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining the LELO

Defendants from further infringement.

(4) Whether the ’605 Patent is valid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.

(5)Whether the ’605 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct before the USPTO 

during prosecution and during ex parte reexamination.

(6) Whether any party is entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

(7) Whether this case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling any party to 

recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in prosecuting this case.

4. MOTIONS 

Standard Innovation has two pending motions at this time, including Motion for Leave to 

File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 83) and Motion for Order Permitting Service under 

F.R.C.P. 4(h)(2) (Doc. No. 111).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 4

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 4 of 13
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

5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 

Standard Innovation does not currently know whether amendments to the pleadings will be 

required beyond those proposed in Standard Innovation’s Motion for Leave to File Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 83). 

The LELO Defendants anticipate amending the pleadings to add an additional affirmative 

defense of inequitable conduct.

6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants certify they have reviewed the Guidelines 

Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”), and confirm they have met 

and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken 

to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.

7. DISCLOSURES

Pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 26(f), Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants

conferred telephonically on September 15, 2015 prior to this case’s transfer to this District. 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree to exchange initial disclosures on 

January 6, 2016, and will make further disclosures in compliance with P.L.R. 3-1 – 3-4. 

8. DISCOVERY

A. Discovery Taken to Date 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants held their Rule 26(f) Conference prior to 

this case’s transfer to this District on September 15, 2015. 

Discovery Subjects: The general subjects on which discovery will be needed include the 

factual issues in dispute above, and include the alleged infringement of the ’605 Patent; 

conception, ownership, and prosecution of the ’605 Patent; the nature and operation of the accused 

products; invalidity and enforceability of the ’605 Patent; any licensing of the ’605 Patent; and 

alleged damages.

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants have agreed to the following limitations:

(a) Depositions: Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants propose that the 

parties comply with the discovery limitations agreed to in the parties’ initial Case Management 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 5

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 5 of 13
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

Conference Statement (Doc. No. 58). Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants also reserve

all rights to seek further modifications of the limits set under the applicable rules and agree to 

confer in good faith if a need arises for additional discovery. 

(b) Expert Discovery: Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree that the 

limits on expert discovery set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) and (C) shall be enforced in this 

matter. Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants stipulate that counsel need not preserve 

drafts of expert reports (partial or complete), notes and other evidence of communications with 

experts on the subject of the expert’s actual or potential testimony, provided, however, that this 

Paragraph 8.A(b) shall not apply to any communications or documents that the expert relied upon 

in forming his or her opinion as expressed in an affidavit, report, or testimony in connection with 

this civil action, or on which the expert intends to rely as a basis for an opinion expressed in an 

affidavit, report, or testimony in connection with this civil action. Such communications or 

documents shall be subject to discovery and (to the extent otherwise admissible) to inquiry at trial. 

In addition, discovery concerning an expert’s compensation is permissible. 

(c) Interrogatories: Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree that pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 each party is limited to serving on any other party no more than 25 written 

interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.

(d) Requests for Admissions: Each party may propound a maximum of 50 requests for 

admission on topics other than the authenticity of documents. There will be no limit on the 

number of requests for admission as to the authenticity of documents.

(e) Privilege log: Neither party shall be required to log privileged materials that postdate the December 2, 2011 filing of Standard Innovation’s Complaint in this matter.

B. Scope and Phasing of Anticipated Discovery 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants intend to pursue discovery in the form of 

requests for documents and other things, interrogatories, depositions, and all forms of discovery

authorized by the Federal Rules. Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants may seek thirdparty discovery. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 6

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 6 of 13
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

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants do not believe that discovery should be

phased with two exceptions: (1) Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree to the 

phasing of email discovery set forth in the Northern District of California Model Stipulated Order 

regarding Discovery Of Electronically Stored Information For Patent Litigation; and (2) Standard 

Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree that fact discovery should be complete before expert 

reports are due and expert discovery commences.

C. Electronically Stored Information 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree that the case be governed by the 

Northern District of California “Model Stipulated Order regarding Discovery of Electronically 

Stored Information for Patent Litigation.” 

D. Issues Regarding Claims of Privilege and Work Product 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) shall 

be enforced in this matter, and agree that the Court should enter an order governing non-waiver of

privilege due to inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. Standard Innovation and the 

LELO Defendants will negotiate a proposed provision and include it in the proposed Protective

Order that Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants expect to submit to the Court. 

The only defendants who have answered or appeared are LELOi AB and LELO Inc., and

LELOi AB and LELO Inc. make no representations on behalf of any other named defendant.

E. Stipulated Protective Order 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants agree that a stipulated protective order

should be entered and further agree to use the Northern District of California model order for

patent cases involving highly-sensitive materials as their model, with certain agreed upon

modifications tailored to this case. Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants expect to 

submit a proposed stipulated Protective Order for the Court’s consideration shortly. 

F. Email Service Agreement 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants have agreed to accept service of discovery

requests, discovery responses, expert reports and other documents that are not served through the

ECF system (for example, sealed pleadings) by email. Hard copies will be provided by overnight 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 7

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 7 of 13
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

mail upon request by the receiving party. Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants further

agree to accept service by other reasonable electronic means, such as by an email providing access 

to the documents on an ftp site or through online services such as DropBox or Secure FTP, so 

long as the sender provides instructions on how to access the documents. Standard Innovation and 

the LELO Defendants further agree that a document is deemed served on a particular day if it (or

an email providing access to it) is received by midnight Pacific Time on that calendar day 

(provided that the sender does not receive any indication that the email transmission was 

unsuccessful). Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants will meet and confer regarding

service lists, but in the absence of any additional agreement, Standard Innovation and the LELO 

Defendants will serve counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service.

9. CLASS ACTIONS

Not applicable.

10. RELATED CASES 

None.

11. RELIEF

Plaintiff’s Request: Standard Innovation seeks money damages for the LELO Defendants’ 

infringement of Standard Innovation’s ’605 Patent, together with prejudgment interest and a 

permanent injunction barring Defendants and all their affiliates from further acts of 

infringement and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and prejudgment 

interest based on a finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Defendants’ Request: The LELO Defendants seek a judgment denying Standard 

Innovation all relief requested, a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity, an award of 

prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs, and attorneys’ fees based upon a finding that 

this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

12. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 

In the related ITC investigation (337-TA-823), Standard Innovation and the LELO 

Defendants participated in three mandatory settlement conferences, none of which resulted in 

resolution of any disputes. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 8

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 8 of 13
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 Lelo Inc. v. Standard Innovation Corp. et. al, LELO Inc. and Standard Innovation 

Corporation and Standard Innovation (US.) Corp. participated in a mandatory in-person settlement 

meet-and-confer in August 2015 and a mandatory settlement conference in September 2015,

during which those parties discussed settling all disputes between them. The parties have not been 

able to reach resolution. The next settlement conference in that case is scheduled for March 8, 

2016. The parties’ principals plan to discuss potential settlement of all disputes either by phone or 

in person before then. Based on prior settlement discussions, Standard Innovation and the LELO 

Defendants believe a prompt settlement is unlikely. 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants will file a Stipulated Agreement to ADR

by April 1, 2016 (Doc. No. 127) or request the Court’s assistance on this issue if a stipulation 

cannot be reached. 

13. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants respectfully decline the appointment of a 

Magistrate Judge for all purposes.

14. OTHER REFERENCES

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants do not believe the case is suitable for

reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 

15. NARROWING OF ISSUES 

Standard Innovation and LELO Defendants believe that issues of infringement and 

invalidity may be narrowed by claim construction and summary judgment motions.

16. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE

Not applicable (Doc. No. 127).

17. SCHEDULING

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants propose the schedule in the attached 

Appendix A. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 9

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 9 of 13
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

18. TRIAL

The trial will be a jury trial. Standard Innovation anticipates it will take approximately 3-4

full court days to present its evidence at trial. LELO Defendants anticipate it will take 

approximately 5-7 full court days to present their evidence at trial.

19. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 

Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants have filed the “Certification of Interested 

Entities of Persons” required by Civil Local Rule 3-16 (Docket Item Nos. 2, 42, 43).

20. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

All attorneys of record for Standard Innovation and the LELO Defendants have reviewed 

the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.

DATED: January 6, 2015 By:/s/Tammy J. Terry__________________

Tammy J. Terry (CA State Bar No. 230283)

terry@oshaliang.com

OSHA LIANG LLP

909 Fannin Street, Ste. 3500

Houston, TX 77010

Tel.: (713)-228-8600

Fax: (713)-228-8778

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STANDARD INNOVATION CORP.

By:/s/ Hector J. Ribera________________

HECTOR J. RIBERA (CSB No. 221511)

hribera@fenwick.com

CAROLYN CHANG (CSB No. 217933)

cchang@fenwick.com

KUNYU CHING (CSB No. 292616)

kching@fenwick.com

FENWICK & WEST LLP

Silicon Valley Center

801 California Street

Mountain View, CA 94041

Telephone: 650.988.8500

Facsimile: 650.938.5200

BRYAN A. KOHM (CSB No. 233276)

bkohm@fenwick.com

LAUREN E. WHITTEMORE (CSB No. 255432)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 10

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 10 of 13
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

lwhittemore@fenwick.com

FENWICK & WEST LLP

555 California Street, 12th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: 415.875.2300

Facsimile: 415.281.1350

Attorneys for Defendants

LELOi AB and LELO INC.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 11

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 11 of 13
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

APPENDIX A – PROPOSED SCHEDULE

Event Date

Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 

Infringement Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-1, 3-2)

December 31, 2015

[14 days after initial CMC - PLR 3-1]

Invalidity Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-3, 3-4) February 15, 2016

[45 days after Disclosures of Asserted Claims 

and Infringement Contentions - PLR 3-3]

Proposed claim terms for construction (Patent 

L.R. 4-1) – Standard Innovation proposes no 

more than two terms per side, LELO 

Defendants propose no more than five terms per 

side

February 29, 2016

[14 days after service of Invalidity 

Contentions - PLR 4-1]

Deadline for Parties to File Stipulated Schedule 

to Reduce Claims

March 1, 2016

Case Management Order (Doc. No. 127)

Parties exchange Preliminary Claim 

Constructions and identify supporting evidence 

and experts (Patent L.R. 4-2)

March 21, 2016

[21 days after exchange of proposed terms -

PLR 4-2]

Deadline for Parties to File Stipulated 

Agreement to ADR

April 1, 2016

Case Management Order (Doc. No. 127)

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement (Patent L.R. 4-3)

April 15, 2016

[60 days after service of Invalidity 

Contentions - PLR 4-3]

Close of Claim Construction Discovery (Patent 

L.R. 4-4) May 16, 2016

[30 days after filing JCCPS - PLR 4-4]

Deadline to Amend Pleadings July 29, 2016

Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief 

due (Patent L.R. 4-5)

May 31, 2016

[45 days after filing JCCPS - PLR 4-5]

Defendants’ Opposition Claim Construction 

Brief due(Patent L.R. 4-5)

June 14, 2016

[14 days after opening brief - PLR 4-5]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 12

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 12 of 13
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

Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief due 

(Patent L.R. 4-5)

June 21, 2016

[7 days after opposition briefs - PLR 4-5]

Claims Construction Technology Tutorial 

(Patent L.R. 4-6) 

Oct. 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

Case Management Order (Doc. No. 127)

Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L.R. 4-6) Nov. 4, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

Case Management Order (Doc. No. 127)

Deadline for settlement conference Within 30 days of Claim Construction Ruling

Close of Fact Discovery 60 days after Claim Construction Ruling

Opening expert reports due 90 days after Claim Construction Ruling

Rebuttal expert reports due 120 days after Claim Construction Ruling

Close of expert discovery 150 days after Claim Construction Ruling

Deadline for dispositive motions to be filed 30 days after close of expert discovery

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions June 1, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

Case Management Order (Doc. No. 127)

Final Pretrial Conference Aug. 31, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Management Order (Doc. No. 127)

Trial Sept. 25, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

Case Management Order (Doc. No. 127)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 13

Case No. 5:15-cv-04858-BLF

Case 5:15-cv-04858-BLF Document 130 Filed 01/25/16 Page 13 of 13