Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00019/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00019-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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 

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP 

 

PARKER C. FOLSE, III 

(WA Bar No. 24895-Pro Hac Vice) 

pfolse@susmangodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Telephone: (206) 516-3860 

Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 

(additional attorneys listed on signature page) 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

BURST.COM, INC. 

MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) 

matthew.powers@weil.com 

NICHOLAS A. BROWN (Bar No. 198210) 

nicholas.brown@weil.com 

MICHAEL D. POWELL (Bar No. 202850) 

mike.powell@weil.com 

LEERON G. KALAY (Bar No. 233579) 

leeron.kalay@weil.com 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Silicon Valley Office 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 802-3000 

Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

APPLE COMPUTER, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

APPLE COMPUTER, INC., 

Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendant, 

v. 

BURST.COM, INC., 

Defendant and 

Counterclaimant. 

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 

Complaint filed: January 4, 2006 

Trial Date: February 26, 2008 

Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel 

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP Document 118 Filed 06/22/07 Page 1 of 6
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 

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 1 

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP 

The Court entered the current Scheduling Order on September 26, 2006 (docket entry no. 

58). Page 2 of that order states: “The parties further agree that in the event the Court issues a 

claim construction ruling more than 60 days after the claim construction hearing [i.e., after April 

9, 2007], or in the event of other currently unanticipated scheduling changes, they will meet and 

confer regarding the schedule and submit a revised scheduling proposal to the Court.” The 

Court's claim construction ruling was issued on May 8, 2007 (docket entry no. 104). Pursuant to 

the above-quoted language, the parties have agreed on a revised schedule. The proposed revised 

schedule does not change the final pretrial conference or the trial dates. The parties respectfully 

request that the Court enter the stipulated revised schedule, as follows: 

DATE/DEADLINE EVENT 

July 27, 2007 Fact discovery to be substantially completed (as 

discussed at Case Management Conference) 

August 3, 2007 Mediation deadline 

August 10, 2007 Disclosure of expert witnesses, service of reports, and 

production of documents regarding expert testimony on 

issues as to which each party bears the burden of proof 

(FRCP 26(a)(2)) 

August 31, 2007 Deadline by which all burden-of-proof experts must be 

produced for deposition 

September 14, 2007 Disclosure of expert witnesses, service of reports, and 

production of documents regarding expert testimony in 

response to disclosures regarding burden-of-proof 

experts (FRCP 26(a)(2)) 

September 21, 2007 Deadline for completing clean-up fact discovery (as 

discussed at the Case Management Conference) 

October 5, 2007 Deadline by which all responsive experts must be 

produced for deposition 

October 5, 2007 Deadline for completing expert discovery 

October 12, 2007 Deadline for filing dispositive motions 

November 9, 2007 Due date for responses to dispositive motions 

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP Document 118 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 6
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 

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 2 

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP 

DATE/DEADLINE EVENT 

November 21, 2007 Due date for reply briefs in support of dispositive 

motions 

___________, 2007 

(approximately 2 weeks after 

reply briefs on dispositive 

motions) 

Hearing on dispositive motions. 

NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 17, 2007 AT 2:00 

P.M. 

January 8, 2008 (1) File joint final pretrial conference statement and 

proposed order; 

(2) File exhibit list and witness list, and exchange 

exhibits and other trial material; 

(3) Serve and file requests for voir dire questions, jury 

instruction, and verdict forms; 

(4) Serve and file statements designating deposition 

excerpts, interrogatory answers, and responses to 

requests for admission to be used at trial; 

January 22, 2008 (1) Serve objections to admission of exhibits and 

deposition testimony 

(2) Serve and file counterdesignations to deposition 

designations 

(3) Serve and file motions in limine 

February 5, 2008 (1) File objections to counterdesignations and any other 

objections requiring action by the Court 

(2) Serve and file oppositions to motions in limine 

February 13, 2008 

at 2:30 p.m. 

Final pretrial conference 

February 26, 2008 

at 8:30 a.m. 

Trial begins 

 As reflected in the previously entered Scheduling Order (docket entry no. 58), the parties 

have agreed as follows regarding written and deposition discovery: 

a. The parties will adhere to the numerical and temporal limits on deposition 

discovery in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, except that each side may identify one witness 

whom it may depose for up to two days of seven hours each (thus giving each 

party a total of eleven days of depositions). The parties reserve all rights to object 

December 17

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP Document 118 Filed 06/22/07 Page 3 of 6
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 

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 3 

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP 

to particular depositions, including the right to object that the particular witness 

chosen by the other side for the two-day deposition should not be deposed for two 

days. The depositions of expert witnesses shall not count against the numerical 

limitations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). 

b. Every seven hours or fraction thereof of deposition testimony pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall count as one day of deposition testimony for purposes of 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), except that with respect to all depositions taken pursuant 

to Burst’s Notice of Deposition Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) to Plaintiff Apple 

Computer, Inc., dated June 16, 2006, the parties agree that every segment of three 

and a half (3 1⁄2) hours or less of deposition testimony taken pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall count as one half (1/2) day of deposition testimony for 

purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). 

c. The parties will adhere to the numerical limitations on interrogatories set forth in 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). 

Dated: June 8, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Parker C. Folse III 

PARKER C. FOLSE III (WA Bar No. 24895 - 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

pfolse@susmangodfrey.com 

IAN B. CROSBY (WA Bar No. 28461 - Admitted 

Pro Hac Vice) 

icrosby@susmangodfrey.com 

FLOYD G. SHORT (WA Bar No. 21632- Admitted 

Pro Hac Vice) 

fshort@susmangodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 

(206) 516-3880 Tel. 

(206) 516-3883 Fax 

SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777) 

shosie@hosielaw.com 

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP Document 118 Filed 06/22/07 Page 4 of 6
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 

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 4 

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP 

BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530) 

bwecker@hosielaw.com 

HOSIE McARTHUR LLP 

One Market, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 247-6000 Tel. 

(415) 247-6001 Fax 

MICHAEL F. HEIM (TX Bar No. 9380923 - 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

LESLIE V. PAYNE (TX Bar No. 0784736 - 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P. 

600 Travis Street, Suite 6710 

Houston, TX 77002 

(713) 221-2000 Tel. 

(713) 221.2021 Fax 

ROBERT J. YORIO (CA Bar No. 93178) 

V. RANDALL GARD (CA Bar No. 151677) 

COLBY B. SPRINGER (CA Bar No. 214868) 

CARR & FERRELL LLP 

2200 Geng Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

(650) 812-3400 Tel. 

(650) 812-3444 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

BURST.COM, INC. 

 /s/ Nicholas A. Brown 

MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) 

matthew.powers@weil.com 

NICHOLAS A. BROWN (Bar No. 198210) 

nicholas.brown@weil.com 

MICHAEL D. POWELL (Bar No. 202850) 

mike.powell@weil.com 

LEERON G. KALAY (Bar No. 233579) 

leeron.kalay@weil.com 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Silicon Valley Office 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 802-3000 

Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

APPLE COMPUTER, INC. 

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP Document 118 Filed 06/22/07 Page 5 of 6
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 

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 5 

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED THIS _____ day of _______________, 2007. 

 ________________________________________ 

 THE HONORABLE MARILYN HALL PATEL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

21st June

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP Document 118 Filed 06/22/07 Page 6 of 6