Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04072/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04072-1/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 

1 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE- Case No. C-04-04072 JW 

[See Below for List of Counsel] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. and 

TARGET THERAPEUTICS, INC., 

 Plaintiffs and 

 Counterdefendants, 

 vs. 

MICRUS CORPORATION, 

 Defendant and 

 Counterclaimant. 

Case No.: C04-04072-JW 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY 

CASE SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, 7-11 and 7-12, plaintiffs Boston Scientific 

Corporation and Target Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively “Boston Scientific”) and defendant Micrus 

corporation (“Micrus”) hereby request an order modifying the case schedule set by the Court’s 

March 21, 2006 Scheduling Order. The proposed schedule would amend the Court’s current 

schedule to: (1) include for purposes of discovery and claim construction asserted claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,895,385 (“the ‘385 patent”) which are still in reexamination and reissue proceedings 

and (2) extend the current schedule for claim construction discovery and exchanges by 

approximately two and a half month to allow for discovery concerning the ‘385 patent. The 

parties believe that this modification would streamline the case and potentially avoid the need for 

multiple claim construction hearings. 

 As the Court may recall, the ‘385 patent, one of the patents-in-suit, is currently undergoing 

reexamination/reissue proceedings before the United Patent and Trademark Office. The Court’s 

March 21 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion To Stay Proceedings lifted the previous stay as to 

the claims that have been confirmed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), but 

continued the stay with respect to those claims still pending reexamination. At the March 20, 

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 64 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 5
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 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE- Case No. C-04-04072 JW 

2006 scheduling conference, however, the Court suggested that the parties may seek to develop a 

discovery plan that is most efficient in light of the reexamination. 

The parties have agreed that in the interest of conserving resources, avoiding duplication, 

and streamlining discovery, Boston Scientific, for the purposes of discovery and claim 

construction only, would identify pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1, those claims of the ‘385 patent 

which are still in reexamination but that Boston Scientific intends to assert, if and when confirmed 

by the Patent Office. This would permit the parties to take discovery on those claims now, at the 

same time they conduct discovery concerning the related ‘498 patent which has already been 

confirmed by the Patent Office and is no longer subject to a stay. Moreover, by addressing the 

‘385 and ‘498 patents together, only one round of claim construction briefing and one claim 

construction hearing should be necessary, rather than having a second round and separate hearing 

after the ‘385 patent emerges from the reexamination/reissue proceedings. The ‘385 and ‘498 

patent share the same specification and share some similar terms. To the extent the ‘385 patent is 

still undergoing reexamination or reissue proceedings as the Court’s dispositive motion cut-off 

approaches in this case, the parties will meet and confer regarding when and how dispositive 

motions for the ‘385 patent should be brought. 

 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the following revised schedule be entered 

by the Court. Although the proposed schedules extends a number of claim construction deadlines 

to allow for the Patent Local Rule disclosures for the ‘385 patent, for the reasons discussed, the 

parties believe that in the long run the modified schedule will be more expeditious. 

EVENT DATE SET BY COURT PROPOSED DATE 

PLR 3-1 & 3-2 disclosures N/A 8/7/06 

PLR 3-3 & 3-4 disclosures N/A 9/21/06 

PLR 4-1 disclosure 6/19/06 9/25/06 

PLR 4-2 disclosure 7/7/06 10/2/06 

PLR 4-3 disclosure 8/4/06 10/16/06 

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 64 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 5
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 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE- Case No. C-04-04072 JW 

Opening claim construction expert report 8/4/06 10/16/06 

Rebuttal claim construction expert report 8/28/06 11/06/06 

Close of claim construction discovery 9/1/06 11/22/06 

Claim construction opening briefing 9/15/06 12/1/06 

Claim construction opposition briefing 9/29/06 12/15/06 

Claim construction reply briefing 10/6/06 12/22/06 

Claim construction hearing 10/27/06 1/8/07 

DATED: August 7, 2006 

 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. 

and TARGET THERAPEUTICS, INC. 

By: __/s/_____________________________ 

FOLGER LEVIN & KAHN LLP 

Michael F. Kelleher (Bar No. 165493) 

Julie L. Fieber (Bar No. 202857) 

Embarcadero Center West 

275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 986-2800 

Fax: (415) 986-2827 

J. Anthony Downs (Pro Hac Vice) 

Roland H. Schwillinski (Pro Hac Vice) 

Amanda M. Kessel (Pro Hac Vice) 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 

Exchange Place 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109-2881 

Tel: (617) 570-1000 

Fax: (617) 570-1231 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

By:____/s/_____________________________ 

Matthew D. Powers (Bar No. 104795) 

Douglas E. Lumish (Bar No. 183863) 

Eric Xanthopoulos (Bar No. 253973) 

Rip J. Finst (Bar No. 234478) 

Silicon Valley Office 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 802-3000 

Facsimile: (650) 802-310 

Attorneys for 

Defendant and Counterclaimant 

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 64 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 5
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 

4 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE- Case No. C-04-04072 JW 

[See below for List of Counsel] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. and 

TARGET THERAPEUTICS, INC., 

 Plaintiffs and 

 Counterdefendants, 

 vs. 

MICRUS CORPORATION, 

 Defendant and 

 Counterclaimant. 

Case No.: C04-04072-JW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING CASE 

SCHEDULE

 This matter came regularly before the Court on the stipulated request of plaintiffs Boston 

Scientific Corporation and Target Therapeutics, Inc. and defendant Micrus Corporation to modify 

the case schedule. 

 Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the following schedule be adopted: 

EVENT DATE 

PLR 3-1 & 3-2 disclosures 8/7/06 

PLR 3-3 & 3-4 disclosures 9/21/06 

PLR 4-1 disclosure 9/25/06 

PLR 4-2 disclosure 10/2/06 

PLR 4-3 disclosure 10/16/06 

Opening claim construction expert report 10/16/06 

Rebuttal claim construction expert report 11/06/06 

Close of claim construction discovery 11/22/06 

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 64 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 5
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 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE- Case No. C-04-04072 JW 

Claim construction opening briefing 12/1/06 

Claim construction opposition briefing 12/15/06 

Claim construction reply briefing 12/22/06 

Claim construction hearing 1/7/06 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August __, 2006 ______________________________________ 

 Hon. James Ware 

 United States District Judge

 Northern District of California 

LIBA/1719001.1

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 64 Filed 08/09/06 Page 5 of 5