Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01594/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01594-2/pdf.json

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

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff and 

Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

BIZCOM ELECTRONICS, INC., COMPAL

ELECTRONICS, INC., and SCEPTRE

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

 /

FIRST INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER, INC.

and FIRST INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER OF

AMERICA, INC.,

___________________________________/

Q-LITY COMPUTER, INC., QUANTA

COMPUTER, INC., and QUANTA COMPUTER

USA, INC.,

Defendants and 

Counterclaimants.

___________________________________/

No. C 01-01375 CW

 C 01-01594 CW

 C 01-02187 CW 

 

THIS DOCUMENT

RELATES TO ALL

CASES

ORDER REGARDING

COURT APPOINTED

EXPERT

On January 17, 2007, the parties filed their joint proposal

for the selection and use of a court appointed expert in these

cases. The parties propose "that a Court Appointed Expert, if used

at all, should provide testimony relating only to the background of

pertinent technologies" in the form of "a tutorial for the jury

limited to the technology and the terminology used in the relevant

industry." Joint Proposal at 2-3. According to their proposal,

Case 4:01-cv-01594-CW Document 971 Filed 01/22/07 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

"The Court Appointed Expert would not provide any testimony

relating to the substantive issues in dispute such as infringement

or validity." Id. at 3.

The Court has considered the parties' joint proposal and

intends to proceed with a court appointed expert who will provide

testimony relating to the substantive issues in dispute as well as

technological issues as discussed at the December 1, 2006 case

management conference. The Court would also accept a jury waiver.

The parties shall submit within two weeks a joint proposal

regarding the selection of a court appointed expert who will

provide testimony relating to the pertinent technologies as well as

opinions regarding disputed issues. 

The parties shall meet and confer concerning the individual

that the Court will select as the court-appointed expert. If they

cannot agree on the individual, the parties shall try to agree on

the process for selecting the individual and shall inform the Court

of the agreed process. If the parties cannot agree on a process,

Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with two nominees; Defendants

shall provide Plaintiff with two nominees. The parties will

provide the Court with commentary, no more than five pages per

side, on why the Court should select one of their nominees, and not

one of the opposing side's nominees. 

The parties are also ordered to submit a proposed schedule,

including when the parties will provide the court-appointed expert

with information, and what information will be provided, when the

court-appointed expert's report should be due and when the parties

will depose the court-appointed expert. 

Case 4:01-cv-01594-CW Document 971 Filed 01/22/07 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 Court will consider the parties' statement and then issue

an order. If the parties have any legal arguments why the Court

should not proceed in this manner, they should submit them to the

Court along with the joint proposal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/22/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-01594-CW Document 971 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3