Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02069/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Large Scale Biology Corporation
Counter-defendant
Prodigene, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

1

In support ofits argument, Defendant contends that it has alleged infringement of claims 1 and 2 ofthe

'870 Patent and reserved the right to assert infringement of claims 3 and 4. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARGE SCALE BIOLOGY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff.

 v.

PRODIGENE, INC., 

Defendant.

_______________________________________

No. C 04-2069 SBA

 

ORDER

On April 11, 2005, this Court issued an Order for Pretrial Preparation (the "PretrialOrder") [Docket

No. 105] which provided, inter alia, that the Claim Construction Hearing for the instant matter would take

place at 10:00 a.m. on July 11, 2005.

On May 6, 2005, the parties submitted their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (the

"Claim ConstructionStatement") forconstructionof claim terms fromUnited States Patent 5,824,870 (the "'870

Patent"). In the Claim Construction Statement, the parties note that they dispute whether all of the claims of

the '870 Patent need to be construed since Defendant Prodigene, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Prodigene") has only

asserted infringement with respect to claims 1 and 2 of the '870 Patent. 

On May 19, 2005, Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment

Complaint ("Defendant's Motion to Dismiss") [Docket No. 108]. In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant seeks

an order dismissing portions of Plaintiff's Complaint on the basis that no actualcase or controversy exists with

respect to claims 5-13 ofthe '870 Patent.1 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is set for a June 28, 2005 hearing.

On June 7, 2005, Plaintiff and Defendant submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Modifying

Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 114]. In the Stipulation,

Case 4:04-cv-02069-SBA Document 115 Filed 06/08/05 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

the parties have requested that the Court continue the June 28, 2005 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

to July 12, 2005, so that the parties may have an opportunity to pursue negotiations that may lead to a

stipulated dismissal of Defendant's Motion. 

For good cause showing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED

from June 28, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. to July 12, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss no later than June 17, 2005. Defendant shall file its reply, if any, no later

than June 24, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Claim ConstructionHearing, scheduled for July 11, 2005 at

10:00 a.m., is VACATED and all dates in the April 11, 2005 Pretrial Order directly relating to the Claim

Construction Hearing are VACATED. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Order does not modify any

other dates or deadlines set forth in the April 11, 2005 Pretrial Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties shall attend a Case Management Conference on

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 1:00 p.m., immediately following the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The parties shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management

Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the Case Management

Conference. Plaintiff shall be responsible for filing the statement. The Case Management Conference

Statement shall specifically identify the next available date for the Claim Construction Hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 6-8-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02069-SBA Document 115 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 2