Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07610/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07610-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Panoptx, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Protective Optics, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

1

________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No.: 3:06-cv-07610 MHP

SV 346172100v1 6/20/2007

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

KENNETH E. KELLER (SBN: 71450) KKeller@kksrr.com

MICHAEL D. LISI (SBN 196974) MLisi@kksrr.com

KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP

114 Sansome Street, 4

th

Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 249-8330

Facsimile: (415) 249-8333

Attorneys for Plaintiff and

Cross-defendant PANOPTX, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PANOPTX, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC., a California

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:06-cv-07610 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

And Related Counterclaim.

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Panoptx, Inc. (“Panoptx”) and Defendant and

Counterclaimant Protective Optics, Inc. (“Protective Optics”) by and through their undersigned

counsel, state and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on April 9, 2007, the Court held an initial Case Management Conference in this

case, during which the Court set a schedule for Protective Optics to file its motion for summary

judgment of invalidity;

WHEREAS, the Court ordered Protective Optics to file its summary judgment motion by

Case 3:06-cv-07610-MHP Document 26 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 3
2

_________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No.: 3:06-cv-07610 MHP

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

June 25, 2007, Panoptx to file its Opposition /Rule 56(f) declarations by July 16, 2007, Protective

Optics to file its reply brief by July 23, 2007, and set a hearing on the motion for August 20, 2007;

WHEREAS, at the initial Case Management Conference the Court also ordered Protective

Optics to disclose its invalidity position to Panoptx by no later than April 23, 2007;

WHEREAS, Protective Optics wrote to Panoptx on April 24, 2007, stating its invalidity

arguments and identifying the prior art on which it was relying and offering Panoptx an additional

day to conduct discovery relating to the references, to which Panoptx did not respond;

WHEREAS, the Court stated at the initial Case Management Conference that the parties

could agree to modify this schedule to the extent necessary;

WHEREAS, pursuant to that statement, the parties have previously agreed to make one

change to the schedule, submitting a stipulated request to re-set the hearing on the motion for

summary judgment from August 20, 2007 until September 24, 2007, which the Court granted on

June 7, 2007;

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2007, Protective Optics wrote to Panoptx and disclosed additional

prior art references on which it intended to rely in connection with its upcoming motion for summary

judgment of invalidity;

WHEREAS, on or about June 20, 2007, the parties met and conferred about the June 18

th

disclosure and agreed that Panoptx should have additional time to prepare its response to Protective

Optics’ motion for summary judgment;

WHEREAS, the parties agreed to extend the deadline for Panoptx’s opposition to August 6,

2007, and the deadline for Protective Optics’ reply brief to August 13, 2007;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties to this action,

by and through their respective counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court, that the

deadline for Panoptx to file its opposition to Protective Optics’ motion for summary judgment of

invalidity should be extended until August 6, 2007, that the deadline for Protective Optics to file its

reply brief should be extended until August 13, 2007, and that the July 25, 2007 deadline for

Protective Optics to file its summary judgment motion and the September 24, 2007 hearing date

Case 3:06-cv-07610-MHP Document 26 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 3
3

_________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No.: 3:06-cv-07610 MHP

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

should remain the same.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: June 21, 2007 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP

By: _______________/s/______________________

Michael D. Lisi

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-defendant

PANOPTX, INC.

Dated: June 21, 2007 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

By: _______________/s/______________________

Daniel T. McCloskey

Attorneys for Defendant and

Cross-Complainant PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC.

I hereby attest that I have been authorized by Daniel T. McCloskey to execute on his behalf

this Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order.

Executed on this 21st day of June, 2007 at San Francisco, California.

/s/ Michael D. Lisi

MICHAEL D. LISI

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

78274

6/22/2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cv-07610-MHP Document 26 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3