Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03732/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03732-71/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

THERASENSE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,

Defendant. /

AND CONSOLIDATED CASES. 

 /

No. C 04-02123 WHA

Consolidated with

No. C 04-03327 WHA

No. C 04-03732 WHA

No. C 05-03117 WHA

ORDER REGARDING

FORMAT OF PROPOSED

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

AFTER BENCH TRIAL

By FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2008, at NOON, both sides shall e-file proposed findings of fact,

each identified by number. Each proposed finding should be concise and limited to one or two

or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed by

exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a level

of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of thumb,

less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more

controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and more proposed findings. 

Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals

should be double-spaced. Example: 

Case 3:04-cv-03732-WHA Document 450 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

1. When defendant went through the intersection of

Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction. 

Jones at RT 97:1–3

Young at RT 15:11–12

The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each

proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the

conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The

overall length of the submission must be 30 pages or less. 

By WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2008, at NOON, the opposing side must file and serve a

response. The response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the

responding party agrees with the proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full

extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the

proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed

finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based on a failure of the record

cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) versus (ii) the extent to

which the objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary evidence) versus lack of

credibility (citing relevant evidence). Example: 

1. Agree that the light was red but the light had just

changed a split second before. 

Mack RT 42:17–18

The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with

each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding

side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting

findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to

support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal

basis for the proposed conclusion. 

Case 3:04-cv-03732-WHA Document 450 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and

then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice the

overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds. All citation to facts must

be to documents, declarations or testimony received in evidence at the evidentiary hearing.

Dated: June 2, 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03732-WHA Document 450 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 3