Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06430/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06430-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan W. Dudas
Defendant
Hi/fn, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

ABRAHAM A. SIMMONS (SBN 146400)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, P.O. Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7264

Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

Email: abraham.simmons@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HI/FN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONATHAN W. DUDAS, DIRECTOR OF

THE UNITED STATES PATENT &

TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-6430 MMC

E-FILING CASE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Hi/fn, Inc. and defendant,

Jonathan W. Dudas, as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.

§§ 701 et seq., and other statutes requesting review of decisions made by the Patent and

Trademark Office (“PTO”). Specifically, plaintiff seeks review of the PTO’s decision that

Hi/fn’s delay in paying the maintenance fees for nine of its patents were not unavoidable within

the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(1). As such, the parties agree that this case presents the review

of an administrative record and is appropriate for resolution in accordance with the procedures

set forth in Northern District Local Rule 16-5.

//

Case 3:07-cv-06430-MMC Document 5 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order

C 07-6430 MMC 2

2. The parties agree that Defendant will file an answer on or before March 20, 2008.

3. The parties agree that there are nine patents at issue. The parties further agree that

defendant shall file the administrative record with respect to one representative patent on or

before April 3, 2008. The parties agree that the district court’s resolution of the case based upon

the representative patent shall apply to all nine patents. 

4. The parties agree that the representative patent shall be chosen in the following

manner. On or before March 20, 2008, defendant shall prepare and serve on plaintiff the

documents with respect to two patents, namely US Patent 5,463,390 and US Patent 5,003,307.

On or before March 27, 2008, plaintiff shall inform defendant which one of the two patents shall

be the representative patent for purposes of deciding all issues in this case. On or before April 3,

2008, defendant shall file with the district court the administrative record consisting of the

relevant documents of only the selected representative patent. 

5. The parties further agree and stipulate that this case is not appropriate for the

Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in the local rules and is not appropriate for

the initial disclosure and other discovery obligations set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The parties jointly request that the Court sign the proposed order that follows

this stipulation; the order relieves the parties of the otherwise applicable initial disclosure and

ADR obligations.

6. Pursuant to Local Rule 16-5, the parties adopt, and request that the court accept,

the following briefing schedule for resolution of this case:

A. The parties shall file cross-motions for summary judgment on or before

April 25, 2008. The cross-motions shall be set for hearing on the Court’s

regular May 30, 2008 calendar or at such other time as the Court directs.

B. The parties shall file their respective oppositions on or before

May 9, 2008.

C. Reply briefs are not required; if either party chooses to submit a reply

brief, such brief shall be filed on or before May 16, 2008.

//

Case 3:07-cv-06430-MMC Document 5 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order

C 07-6430 MMC 3

7. The parties recognize that if this stipulation is accepted by the Court, there may be

no need for an Initial Case Management Conference. Accordingly, the parties request that the

court consider entering the following order that vacates the April 4, 2008 case management

conference established in the December 20, 2007 scheduling order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO FLIESLER MEYER

United States Attorney

Dated: 3/4/08 By: _______/s/_________________ ___/s/ Martin C. Fliesler_____

ABRAHAM A. SIMMONS MARTIN C. FLIESLER

Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendant Hi/fn, Inc.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good cause appearing, the court enters the following order:

1. This case presents the review of an administrative record and is appropriate for

resolution in accordance with the procedures set forth in Northern District Local Rule 16-5. 

Defendant shall file an answer on or before March 20, 2008. On or before March 20, 2008,

defendant shall prepare and serve on plaintiff the documents with respect to two patents, namely

US Patent 5,463,390 and US Patent 5,003,307. On or before March 27, 2008, plaintiff shall

inform defendant which one of the two patents shall be the representative patent for purposes of

deciding all issues in this case. On or before April 3, 2008, defendant shall file with the district

court the administrative record consisting of the relevant documents relating to only the

representative patent chosen by plaintiff.

2. This case is removed from the Alternative Dispute Resolution Program and the

parties are relieved from the initial disclosure obligations set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. The parties shall comply with the following briefing schedule for resolution of

this case: (See Civ. L.R. 16-5 (setting forth procedure for review on administrative record).)

Case 3:07-cv-06430-MMC Document 5 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order

C 07-6430 MMC 4

A. The parties shall file cross-motions for summary judgment on or before

April 25, 2008. The cross-motions shall be set for hearing on the Court’s

regular May 30, 2008 calendar.

B. The parties shall file their respective oppositions on or before

May 9, 2008.

C. Reply briefs are not required. Nevertheless, if either party chooses to

submit a reply brief, such brief shall be filed on or before May 16, 2008.

4. The April 4, 2008 case management conference is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________ _________________________________ Date MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Plaintiff shall file a motion

motion

Defendant shall file its opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment

March 5, 2008

If plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-06430-MMC Document 5 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 4