Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02929/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02929-0/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

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Islands corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLOTHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

California corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 06-2929 CW

AMENDED

ORDER SETTING

SCHEDULE 

AND DISCOVERY

LIMITS

This case has been transferred from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Texas and was related to

Monolothic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro Limited International,

C 04-2000 CW. The parties were ordered to file a joint statement

as to whether they could adhere to the scheduling order set in the

04-2000 case. Under that scheduling order, dispositive motions and

claim construction will be heard on October 13, 2006; a case

management conference is scheduled for December 8, 2006. 

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 19 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Because the parties do not agree that they can follow the

schedule already set in the 04-2000 case, they have filed a joint

statement with their proposed schedules. MPS, ASMC, Asustek and

Hsing believe that, with slight modifications, this case could

remain on the same schedule as the 04-2000 case. O2 Micro, Compal,

DEI and DPC disagree. 

The Court finds that part of the schedule can be set prior to

the initial case management conference, which will be held on

October 13, 2006. The dates for the pre-trial conference and

trial, however, will be set at the initial case management

conference. The Court determines that, with slight modifications,

the patent issues of this case can stay on the same schedule as the

04-2000 case. The Court sets the following schedule for the patent

issues:

July 17, 2006 -- Opening expert reports

August 7, 2006 -- Rebuttal expert reports

August 18, 2006 -- Fact and expert discovery deadline

August 18, 2006 -- O2 Micro to file opening summary 

 judgment and claim construction motion 

 for both this case and the 04-2000 case 

 in a single brief

September 1, 2006 -- Defendants MPS, ASMC, Asustek, Compal 

 and Hsing to file opposition, and 

 their summary judgment and claim 

 construction motion preferably in a 

 single brief, but in no more than one 

 brief per party; if the other Defendants 

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 19 Filed 07/10/06 Page 2 of 4
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

 join in MPS' brief, they may have five 

 extra pages each to address issues not 

 covered in MPS' brief; MPS' and ASMC's 

 brief must address both this case and 

 the 04-2000 case

September 15, 2006 -- O2 Micro to file reply brief and 

 opposition to the Defendants' motions in 

 one brief

September 29, 2006 -- Defendants to file reply, preferably in 

 a single brief 

October 13, 2006 -- Hearing on claim construction and 

 summary judgment motions and initial 

 case management conference.

With respect to the non-patent issues, the Court sets the

following schedule:

September 1, 2006 -- Expert disclosures for party bearing 

 burden of proof on issue

October 14, 2006 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures

November 1, 2006 -- Expert and fact discovery court-off

January 5, 2007 -- Plaintiff's opening summary judgment 

 brief (unless the parties decide that 

 Defendants should file first)

January 19, 2007 -- Defendants' (preferably joint) 

 opposition to summary judgment and cross 

 motion

January 26, 2007 -- Plaintiff's reply brief to summary 

 judgment motion and opposition to cross 

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 19 Filed 07/10/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

 motion

February 2, 2007 -- Defendants' reply on cross motion

February 16, 2007 -- Hearing on summary judgment motions

Defendants must file any motions directed at the pleadings

within two weeks from the date of this order. Any opposition will

be due two weeks after the motion is filed, and the reply will be

due one week after the opposition is filed. Plaintiff, Counterclaimants and Cross-claimant must file any motions directed at the

pleadings within two weeks from the date of this order. Any

opposition will also be due two weeks after the motion is filed,

and the reply will be due one week after the opposition is filed. 

If the parties wish to add any additional parties or claims, they

must include their motions to do so within the briefs allowed

above.

The Court will not modify or alter Judge Ward's amended

discovery order; that order will continue to set the limitations

for discovery in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/10/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 19 Filed 07/10/06 Page 4 of 4