Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In Re Ricoh Company, Ltd. Patent Litigation,

 /

NO. C 03-02289 JW 

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On September 15, 2008, the Court conducted a case management conference. Counsel for

the respective parties were present. Based on the discussion at the conference, the Court orders as

follows:

(1) On December 5, 2008 at 9 a.m., parties shall appear before the Court to present a

tutorial of the patent-in-suit. The purpose of the tutorial is to allow each party to inform the Court

about the background of the technical information which is involved in the case and the nature of the

dispute. Presentations may include demonstrations, expert testimony, or audio visual materials. No

cross-examination will be permitted. However, the Court may pose questions to parties or

witnesses. No record will be made of the proceedings. Statements made during the tutorial may not

be cited as judicial admissions against a party.

(2) On January 23, 2009 at 9 a.m., the Court will conduct a hearing on Plaintiff's

anticipated Motion of Non-Infringement. Plaintiff shall notice this motion in accordance with the

Civil Local Rules of the Court. Once the briefing is closed, the moving party shall compile a three

ring binder (to be lodged with the Court) containing (a) the motion and any supporting memorandum

of law; (b) the opposition memorandum; (c) any reply memorandum; and (d) any exhibits in support

or opposition to the motion, which shall be clearly labeled. At the beginning of each binder the

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 559 Filed 10/02/08 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

moving party shall include, as appropriate, Chart A as described below; each statement shall be

supported by appropriate citations to the motion papers and or exhibits.

Chart A - Summary of Infringement/Non-Infringement Issues

Patent Claim/Elements Stipulated

Construction/Court

Construction

Accused Product Defense Asserted

‘000 Patent, Claim 1

an apparatus

comprising

apparatus means: “a

device which. . .”

Riverside Model 2

1. a handle “handle” means a part

held by the human

hand

Riverside Model 2 the product lacks a

handle

(3) Electronic Storage of Exhibits: The Court has available a digital and video electronic

evidence presentation system. The parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with the system,

and to meet and confer about whether the case will involve voluminous documentation. If so, as the

parties identify documentary material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the parties are

ordered to electronically store these materials in a fashion which will facilitate displaying them

electronically during the trial. The parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 30-2(b) requires sequential

numbering of exhibits during depositions and that numbering must be maintained for those exhibits

throughout the litigation. Each proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for identification. All exhibits

shall be marked with numerals. The parties shall meet and confer on a division which will avoid

duplication (e.g., Plaintiff: 1-99,000; Defendant #1: 100,000-299,999; Defendant #2: 300,000-

500,000).

(4) The Court refers the parties to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all discovery

disputes.

Dated: October 2, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 559 Filed 10/02/08 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Brian A. E. Smith smithbrian@howrey.com

Christopher L. Kelley kelleyc@howrey.com

DeAnna Dahlyce Allen allend@dsmo.com

Denise M. De Mory demoryd@howrey.com

Eric Oliver OLIVERE@DSMO.COM

Erik Keith Moller invalidaddress@myrealbox.com

Ethan B. Andelman andelmane@howrey.com

Gary M. Hoffman HoffmanG@dicksteinshapiro.com

Henry C. Su suh@howrey.com

Jaclyn C. Fink finkj@howrey.com

Jeffrey B. Demain jdemain@altshulerberzon.com

Jonathan David Weissglass jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

Kenneth W. Brothers BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com

Matthew Greinert greinertm@howrey.com

Matthew E. Hocker hockerm@howrey.com

Michael A. Weinstein weinsteinm@dicksteinshapiro.com

Teresa M. Corbin corbint@howrey.com

Thomas C. Mavrakakis tmavrakakis@mac.com

Dated: October 2, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 559 Filed 10/02/08 Page 3 of 3