Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03327/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03327-59/pdf.json

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

---

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

THERASENSE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,

Defendant. /

AND CONSOLIDATED CASES. 

 /

No. C 04-02123 WHA

Consolidated with

No. C 04-03327 WHA

No. C 04-03732 WHA

No. C 05-03117 WHA

NOTICE RE POSSIBLE

PLAN OF BIFURCATION

At the final pretrial conference, counsel should be prepared to address the following

possible trial plan: The first trial would be limited to the ’551 patent. In the first trial on the

’551, there would be three phases and all parties would participate. The first phase would cover

all inequitable conduct issues and invalidity issues by all defendants, the overlapping evidence

to be heard simultaneously by the judge and jury. An issue to be decided is whether to let the

jury decide both issues. If needed, the second phase would cover all infringement issues for all

accused products under the ’551 patent (for all defendants). If needed, phase three would cover

wilfulness and damages for all defendants. All of the foregoing would be before the same jury. 

A separate jury or juries would hear all issues relating to all other patents, the particulars to be

decided later. 

Case 3:04-cv-03327-WHA Document 153 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 2
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

By the day before the final pretrial conference, any party may file up to five pages on

the possible plan in memorandum form — no exhibits, no declarations, nothing but the five

pages. The issue will also be discussed at the conference. The Court is distressed over the huge

volume of “evidence” already piled up on what were promised to be simple and straightforward

motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03327-WHA Document 153 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2