Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00990/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00990-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Digital Impact, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Yesmail, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

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 

Case Nos. C 05 00636 SBA/C 05 00990 SBA – 1 – A:\BIGFOOT-Stipulation and Order.doc 6/1/06 2:02 PM

Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Schedule 

Thomas E. Moore III (Bar # 115107) 

TOMLINSON ZISKO LLP 

200 Page Mill Road, Second Floor 

Palo Alto, California 94306 

Telephone: (650) 325-8666 

Facsimile: (650) 324-1808 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC. 

L.J. Chris Martiniak (Bar # 64847) 

HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

333 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94014 

Telephone: (415) 772-6000 

Facsimile: (415) 772-6268 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

YESMAIL, INC. 

Arthur M. Dresner (pro hac vice) 

REED SMITH LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 521-5404 

Facsimile: (212) 521-5450 

John P. Bovich (SBN 150688) 

REED SMITH LLP

Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3922 

Telephone: (415)543-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 391-8269 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Defendant. 

RELATED CASES: 

No.: C 05 00636 SBA 

No. C 05 00990 SBA 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE SCHEDULE

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

YESMAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation,, 

 Defendant. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 41 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 5
REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

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 

Case Nos. C 05 00636 SBA/C 05 00990 SBA – 2 – A:\BIGFOOT-Stipulation and Order.doc 6/1/06 2:02 PM

Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Schedule 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, by and through their respective counsel, to the 

matters set forth below based on the following: 

1. Pursuant to this Court’s assignment order of November 16, 2005, the parties have 

been working with Magistrate Judge Zimmerman in efforts to try to settle each of the two related 

cases prior to engaging in discovery and incurring substantial litigation costs. The assignment order 

specified that Judge Zimmerman must complete his efforts on or before November 28, 2006. 

2. The parties have engaged in numerous discussions to try to achieve settlement and 

Judge Zimmerman has held a number of conferences with the parties. 

3. Although the parties have not yet reached settlement, progress is being made and the 

parties wish to continue their efforts, with the assistance of Judge Zimmerman, before having to 

engage in costly discovery and preparation for the mini-Markman hearing. This Court’s Case 

Management scheduling order of January 3, 2006 tends to interfere with ongoing settlement 

discussions and the parties therefore desire to have the scheduling order modified by extending each 

of the deadlines set forth in the January 3, 206 scheduling order by 90 days. Accordingly, the 

following stipulation is substantially identical to this Court’s scheduling order of January 3, 2006, 

except for the deadline dates being about 90 days later. 

WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate to the following: 

1. Pending the parties’ attempt to settle the case, discovery in both related cases shall be 

stayed. If resolution of either case is not successful, the court will then conduct a limited “miniMarkman” proceeding in accordance with the rest of this order. At that time, limited discovery may 

be conducted solely as to the issues presented in that proceeding without prejudice to subsequent 

discovery on all relevant issues if the case is not resolved by the mini-Markman proceeding. 

2. The Court will hold a “mini-Markman” hearing on January 30, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., or 

as soon thereafter as this Court may order, concurrently in both related cases. The purpose of the 

“mini-Markman” hearing will be to construe the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,449,634, with 

respect to the sole issue of whether the patent’s claims require steps from independent parties. 

3. The schedule of submissions prior to that hearing is set forth below: 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 41 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 5
REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

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 

Case Nos. C 05 00636 SBA/C 05 00990 SBA – 3 – A:\BIGFOOT-Stipulation and Order.doc 6/1/06 2:02 PM

Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Schedule 

Deadline Activity

September 15, 2006 Exchange of Proposed Terms and Claim 

Elements for Construction (Pat. L.R. 4-1). 

The parties are to limit the terms to be 

construed to no more than six terms. 

September 22, 2006 Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions 

and Extrinsic Evidence (Pat. L.R. 4-2). 

October 13, 2006 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement (Pat. L.R. 4-3). 

November 13, 2006 Claim Construction Discovery closes. 

November 27, 2006 Bigfoot and Yesmail file their “miniMarkman” briefs. 

December 11, 2006 Digital Impact files its opposition papers. 

December 18, 2006 Bigfoot and Yesmail file their reply papers. 

January 30, 2006 Mini-Markman hearing 

3. The parties anticipate that discovery in this case will require the disclosure of 

substantial amounts of confidential, proprietary and other commercially sensitive information, and 

therefore will seek the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order in each related case. All other 

proceedings and disclosures will be deferred until after the Court issues its mini-Markman order. If 

that order does not dispose of the case, the parties may propound discovery on any of the remaining 

issues in the case without further leave of Court. 

4. After issuing its mini-Markman order, the court shall, if necessary, set a date for a 

further case management conference for the purpose of scheduling dates for the balance of the case. 

Dated: May 23, 2006 TOMLINSON ZISKO LLP 

BY /s/ Thomas E. Moore III 

Thomas E. Moore III 

Attorney for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC. 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 41 Filed 06/01/06 Page 3 of 5
REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

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 

Case Nos. C 05 00636 SBA/C 05 00990 SBA – 4 – A:\BIGFOOT-Stipulation and Order.doc 6/1/06 2:02 PM

Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Schedule 

Dated: May 23, 2006 REED SMITH LLP 

BY /s/ Arthur M. Dresner 

Arthur M. Dresner 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC. 

Dated: May 23, 2006 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

BY /s/ L.J. Chris Martiniak 

L.J. Chris Martiniak 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

YESMAIL, INC. 

ORDER

 Pursuant to the stipulation, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

THAT 

1. Pending the parties’ attempt to settle the case, discovery in both related cases shall be 

stayed. If resolution of either case is not successful, the court will then conduct a limited “miniMarkman” proceeding in accordance with the rest of this order. At that time, limited discovery may 

be conducted solely as to the issues presented in that proceeding without prejudice to subsequent 

discovery on all relevant issues if the case is not resolved by the mini-Markman proceeding. 

2. The Court will hold a “mini-Markman” hearing on January 31, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., or 

as soon thereafter as this Court may order, concurrently in both related cases. The purpose of the 

“mini-Markman” hearing will be to construe the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,449,634, with 

respect to the sole issue of whether the patent’s claims require steps from independent parties. 

3. The schedule of submissions prior to that hearing is set forth below: 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 41 Filed 06/01/06 Page 4 of 5
REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware 

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 

Case Nos. C 05 00636 SBA/C 05 00990 SBA – 5 – A:\BIGFOOT-Stipulation and Order.doc 6/1/06 2:02 PM

Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Schedule 

Deadline Activity

September 15, 2006 Exchange of Proposed Terms and Claim 

Elements for Construction (Pat. L.R. 4-1). 

The parties are to limit the terms to be 

construed to no more than six terms. 

September 22, 2006 Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions 

and Extrinsic Evidence (Pat. L.R. 4-2). 

October 13, 2006 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement (Pat. L.R. 4-3). 

November 13, 2006 Claim Construction Discovery closes. 

November 27, 2006 Bigfoot and Yesmail file their “miniMarkman” briefs. 

December 11, 2006 Digital Impact files its opposition papers. 

December 18, 2006 Bigfoot and Yesmail file their reply papers. 

January 31, 2007 Mini-Markman hearing 

3. The parties anticipate that discovery in this case will require the disclosure of 

substantial amounts of confidential, proprietary and other commercially sensitive information, and 

therefore will seek the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order in each related case. All other 

proceedings and disclosures will be deferred until after the Court issues its mini-Markman order. If 

that order does not dispose of the case, the parties may propound discovery on any of the remaining 

issues in the case without further leave of Court. 

4. After issuing its mini-Markman order, the court shall, if necessary, set a date for a 

further case management conference for the purpose of scheduling dates for the balance of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 1, 2006 

HON. SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:05-cv-00990-SBA Document 41 Filed 06/01/06 Page 5 of 5