Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00032/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00032-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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

DB2/21699192.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE FOR CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION; (C-10-00032 WHA) 

P

DANIEL JOHNSON, JR. (State Bar No. 57409) 

MICHAEL J. LYONS (State Bar No. 202284) 

HARRY F. DOSCHER (State Bar No. 245969) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

2 Palo Alto Square 

3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700 

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2122 

Tel: 650.843.4000 

Fax: 650.843.4001 

E-mail: djjohnson@morganlewis.com 

E-mail: mlyons@morganlewis.com 

E-mail: hdoscher@morganlewis.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FINISAR CORPORATION 

Alan H. Blankenheimer (Bar No. 218713) 

Laura E. Muschamp (Bar No. 228717) 

Jo Dale Carothers (Bar No. 228703) 

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 

9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th Floor 

San Diego, CA 92122-1225 

Tel: 858-678-1800 

Fax: 858-678-1600 

E-mail: ablankenheimer@cov.com 

E-mail: lmuschamp@cov.com 

E-mail: jcarothers@cov.com 

Robert T. Haslam (Bar No. 71134) 

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Tel: 650-632-4700 

Fax: 650-632-4800 

E-mail: Rhaslam@cov.com 

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counterclaimants 

SOURCE PHOTONICS, INC. ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

FINISAR CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation,

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, 

vs.

SOURCE PHOTONICS, INC., ET AL., 

Defendants and Counterclaimants. 

Case No. C-10-00032 WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE 

FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor 

Judge: Hon. William Alsup 

Case 3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document 55 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document50 Filed04/30/10 Page1 of 4 Case3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document51 Filed05/03/10 Page1 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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

DB2/21699192.1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE FOR CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION; (C-10-00032 WHA) 

P

 Finisar’s Proposal Defendants’ 

Proposal

Patent L.R. 3-1 Infringement Contentions and Patent L.R. 

3-2 Document Production May 6, 2010 

Patent L.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions and Patent L.R. 3-4

& 3-7 Document Productions (if 10 or fewer claims have 

been asserted by a party)1

June 18, 2010 June 25, 2010 

Patent L.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions and Patent L.R. 3-4

& 3-7 Document Productions (if more than 10 claims have 

been asserted by a party)

June 25, 2010 July 9, 2010 

Patent L.R. 4-1 Exchange of Proposed Terms July 9, 2010 July 15, 2010 

Patent L.R. 4-2 Exchange of Preliminary Claim 

Constructions July 30, 2010 

Patent L.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement August 6, 2010 August 13, 

2010

Patent L.R. 4-4 Close of Claim Construction Discovery August 20, 2010 

Patent L.R. 4-5(a) Opening Claim Construction Brief August 25, 2010 

Patent L.R. 4-5(b) Responsive Claim Construction Brief September 8, 2010 

Patent L.R. 4-5(c) Reply Claim Construction Brief September 15, 2010 

Tutorial September 22, 2010 

1

 At the April 14, 2010 scheduling conference, the Court stated that if a party were to assert more than 10 

claims, it would extend the deadline for submission of invalidity contentions: “If it’s more than ten 

claims, I’m going to give them more time.” Tr. at p. 9, lines 11-12. Plaintiff Finisar believes that 

additional time should be granted if more than 10 independent claims are asserted within a patent family. 

Defendants interpret the Court’s statement to provide that more time will be allowed for invalidity 

contentions if more than 10 claims are asserted by a party regardless of whether the claims are independent 

claims or dependent claims and regardless of whether the asserted claims are for one patent family or are 

spread across multiple patent families. 

Case 3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document 55 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document50 Filed04/30/10 Page2 of 4 Case3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document51 Filed05/03/10 Page2 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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

DB2/21699192.1 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULE FOR CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION; (C-10-00032 WHA) 

P

Claim Construction Hearing October 06, 2010 

The Court having considered the schedule above, and upon good cause showing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

That the [Proposed] Order re Schedule for Claim Construction is hereby adopted by the 

Court. The parties shall comply with this Order. 

Dated: _______, 2010 _________________________________________ 

 HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document50 Filed04/30/10 Page3 of 4

May 3

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge William Alsup

Case3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document51 Filed05/03/10 Page3 of 4

May 11

Case 3:10-cv-00032-WHA Document 55 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 3