Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02399/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02399-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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 

[PROPOSED]JOINT STIPULATED

MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02399-JAM-KJN 

PAUL D. TRIPODI II, State Bar No. 162380 

GRACE J. PAK, State Bar No. 277705 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (323) 210-2900 

Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 

Email: ptripodi@wsgr.com

Email: gpak@wsgr.com 

CRAIG BOLTON (PRO HAC VICE 

ADMITTED)

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (212) 999-5800 

Facsimile: (212) 999-5899 

Email: cbolton@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ZIPMARK, INC. 

BRIAN R. KATZ, State Bar No. 88895 

4364 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 207 

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 

Telephone: (916) 933-5266 

Facsimile: (916) 933-7866 

Email: brian@katzbusinesslaw.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

MYECHECK, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

MYECHECK, Inc., a California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZIPMARK, INC. and Does 1 -- 20, Inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-02399-JAM-KJN 

JOINT STIPULATED MODIFIED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

REGARDING PROCEEDINGS 

RELATING TO SECTION 101 

PATENT ELIGIBILITY

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAM-KJN Document 43 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -1- CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02399-JAM-KJN

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order dated October 7, 2015 (Dkt. 38), the parties hereby 

submit this proposed modified scheduling order. 

Event Deadline 

Fact Discovery directed to Section 101 issues, 

including: 

 Written discovery responses to be 

provided in 14 days of electronic or 

personal service 

 Responsive Documents to be produced 

within 10 days after responses 

 Fact Depositions, if any, to be noticed 

10 days in advance of proposed 

deposition date, directed to Section 101 

issues 

November 25, 2015 

Zipmark Initial Expert Statement(s) and 

Tutorial Summary 

December 11, 2015 

MyECheck Responsive Expert Statement(s) and 

Tutorial Summary 

December 24, 2015 

Expert Depositions completed January 15, 2016 

Zipmark’s Supplemental Brief Regarding Patent 

Ineligibility of U.S. Patent No. 7,329,913 Under 

35 U.S.C. § 101 (Maximum 25 pages) 

January 29, 2016 

MyECheck’s Opposition to Zipmark’s 

Supplemental Brief (Maximum 25 pages) 

February 12 2016 

Zipmark’s Reply in Support of Supplemental 

Brief (Maximum 10 pages) 

February 19, 2016 

The parties propose that a further hearing regarding the patent ineligibility of U.S. Patent 

No. 7,389,913 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be held on March 8, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. 

Scope 

 Pursuant to the Court’s statements at the Oct. 7, 2015 hearing, the parties understand that 

the scope of discovery will be limited to the issue of whether or not the patent-in-suit, U.S. 

Patent No. 7,389,913, is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The parties further 

understand that all other issues in this litigation will be stayed pending resolution of the issue of 

patent eligibility. 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAM-KJN Document 43 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

[PROPOSED]JOINT STIPULATED

MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 

-2- CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02399-JAM-KJN 

Content of Expert Statements 

 The parties propose that the Expert Statements contain, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2)(C)(i), the subject matter on which the party’s expert is expected to present evidence at 

the Court’s hearing regarding these matters. The parties further propose that the Expert 

Statements also contain, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii), a summary of the facts and opinions to 

which the expert is expected to testify at the Court’s hearing regarding these matters, including a 

detailed summary of any tutorial that will be offered.

Supplemental Briefing Page Limit 

The parties propose that the page limit of the supplemental briefs be the same as this 

Court’s page limits on motions for summary judgment. Specifically, the parties propose the 

following page limits: 

Zipmark’s Supplemental Brief: 25 pages 

MyECheck’s Opposition to Zipmark’s Supplemental Brief: 25 pages 

Zipmark’s Reply in Support of Supplemental Brief: 10 pages 

Dated: October 13, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Brian R. Katz s/ Paul D. Tripodi, II 

Brian R. Katz, State Bar No. 88895 Paul D. Tripodi II, State Bar No. 162380 

brian@katzbusinesslaw.com ptripodi@wsgr.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 

MYECHECK, INC. ZIPMARK, INC.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/15/2015______________ /s/ John A. Mendez 

Hon. John A. Mendez 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAM-KJN Document 43 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 3