IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HELFERICH PATENT LICENSING, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 1:11-CV-9143

)

v. )

) Hon. John W. Darrah

J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

J.C. PENNEY'S STATUS AND SCHEDULING REPORT

Pursuant to the request of this Court, made during the motion hearing on April 19, 2012, 

J.C. Penney submits this report of the status and schedule in its case. See, e.g., Helferich Patent 

Licensing, LLC v. New York Times Co. ("NYT Case"), No. 1:11-cv-4387, Dkt. No. 143. Initially, 

it should be noted that the Plaintiff, Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC (“Helferich”), has filed a 

document in this case titled, "Joint Memorandum of Status and Schedules." (Dkt. No. 42). 

Helferich's document is improperly labeled as a "joint" submission. Id. In fact, J.C. Penney was

not joined in the filing because Helferich refused J.C. Penney's requests to include its separate 

position statements in the document. Because J.C. Penney does not object to the statements of 

Helferich or the other defendants as they relate to the other Helferich cases, this report addresses 

only the status and scheduling issues that are relevant to the J.C. Penney case. 

Procedural Background

For purposes of this report, the following dates and events are relevant: 

On December 23, 2011, Helferich filed suit against J.C. Penney. (Dkt No. 1). At that 

time, the New York Times case was stayed pending reexamination of the patents-insuit. NYT Case, Dkt. No. 75, entered March 23, 2011. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:282
2

#11195733_v1

On January 27, 2012, defendants CBS Corp., Bravo Media, LLC, The Bon-Ton 

Stores, Inc., and G4 Media, LLC filed motions to stay their respective cases pending 

reexamination of the patents-in-suit. Helferich Patent Licencing LLC v. CBS Corp., 

No. 1:11-cv-7606, Dkt. No. 30; Helferich Patent Licencing LLC v. Bravo Media, 

LLC., No. 1:11-cv-7647, Dkt. No. 31; Helferich Patent Licencing LLC v. The BonTon Stores, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-07189, Dkt. No. 38; Helferich Patent Licencing LLC v. 

G4 Media, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-07395, Dkt. No. 36. 

On February 16, 2012, defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. filed a similar motion to stay its 

case pending reexamination of the patents-in-suit. Helferich Patent Licencing LLC v. 

Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-06914, Dkt. No. 39. 

On March 13, 2012, Helferich and J.C. Penney filed a Report of the Parties Planning 

Meeting, including an agreed schedule for discovery consistent with the Local Patent 

Rules. (Dkt. No. 27). A copy of that Report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

On March 21, 2012, the J.C. Penney case was referred to Judge Gilbert for the 

purpose of conducting a settlement conference, (Dkt. No. 30), and on March 22, 

2012, Judge Gilbert entered an order requiring the exchange of settlement letters 

consistent with the schedule entered in the other Helferich cases. (Dkt. No. 31). 

On March 23, 2012, Judge Pallmeyer entered the parties' scheduling order as 

proposed. (Dkt. No. 32). 

On April 11, 2012, Heflerich and J.C. Penney served initial disclosures and document 

production on one another, consistent with the scheduling order entered by Judge 

Pallmeyer. 

On April 19, 2011, this case was transferred to this Court for coordination, but not 

consolidation. NYT Case, Dkt. Nos. 143 and 144. During the April 19th motion 

hearing, the Court vacated all dates in the J.C. Penney case and asked the parties to 

submit a report of the status of the schedules in the various Helferich cases. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:283
3

#11195733_v1

On May 2, 2012, after reviewing the settlement submissions of J.C. Penney, 

Helferich, and the other defendants, Judge Gilbert entered an Order finding that "no 

useful purpose would be served by convening a global opening session of all parties 

in all related cases during the settlement conference scheduled for 5/17/12, i.e., a 

session attended by all those parties and their counsel at one time." NYT Case, Dkt. 

No. 145. Instead, Judge Gilbert "schedule[d] separate settlement conference sessions 

with Plaintiff and individual Defendants or smaller groups of Defendants...." Id. 

J.C. Penney's settlement conference is set for May 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM, without any 

other defendants present. 

J.C. Penney's Position on Scheduling

J.C. Penney has not sought a stay of proceedings, and intends to move forward in its case. 

J.C. Penney does not oppose the other defendants' motions to stay their cases pending 

reexaminations. The schedule (discussed below) would not be binding upon the other defendants, 

and would only govern the case between Helferich and J.C. Penney.

Judge Gilbert's Order separating the settlement conferences evidences that the J.C. 

Penney case is substantially different than those against the other defendants. Helferich 

previously agreed to the entry of a scheduling order in the J.C. Penney case, despite the 

pendency of the motions to stay brought by the other defendants in their cases. By seeking 

reexamination of the patents-in-suit, the other defendants will not only commit themselves to a 

substantially different litigation schedule, but will also further separate themselves from J.C. 

Penney with regard to the prior art, claims constructions, and validity/invalidity positions that 

will be litigated in this Court. 

J.C. Penney proposes the entry of the following scheduling order in its case only. 

Although Helferich opposes this schedule, both Helferich and J.C. Penney have acknowledged

that the requirements of the Local Patent Rules apply to this case. J.C. Penney's scheduling 

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:284
4

#11195733_v1

proposal is consistent with the Local Patent Rules, modified to provide additional time for initial 

contentions, and to avoid conflicts with holidays. 

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint March 14, 2012

Defendant's Answer or Other Response to Second Amended Complaint March 28, 2012

Initial Disclosures (LPR 2.1) April 11, 2012

Initial Infringement Contentions (LPR 2.2) June 7, 2012

Final Date for Plaintiff to Amend Pleading or Join Parties June 7, 2012

Initial Non-Infringement, Unenforceability & Invalidity Contentions (LPR 

2.3)

July 12, 2012

Document Production Accompanying Invalidity Contentions

(LPR 2.4)

July 12, 2012

Initial Response To Invalidity Contentions

(LPR 2.5)

August 9, 2012

Final Infringement, Unenforceability & Invalidity Contentions (LPR 3.1) November 1, 2012

Final Non-Infringement, Enforceability and Validity Contentions (LPR 

3.2)

November 29, 2012

Document Production Accompanying Final Invalidity Contentions

(LPR 3.3)

November 29, 2012

Final Date to Seek Stay Pending Reexamination

(LPR 3.5)

November 29, 2012

Final Date for Defendant to Amend Pleading or Join Parties November 29, 2012

First Day Opinion of Counsel Evidence Becomes Discoverable (LPR 

3.6(a))

December 6, 2012

Document Production for Parties Relying on Opinion of Counsel Defense 

Due (LPR 3.6(b))

December 6, 2012

Exchange of Claim Terms Needing Construction December 13, 2012

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:285
5

#11195733_v1

(LPR 4.1(a))

Deadline to Meet and Confer to Select at Most 10 Terms for Construction

(LPR 4.1(b))

December 20, 2012

Initial Fact Discovery Close

(LPR 1.3)

January 10, 2012

Defendant's Opening Claim Construction Brief

(LPR 4.2(a)) (25 page limit)

January 24, 2012

Deadline for Filing Claim Construction Joint Appendix

(LPR 4.2(b))

January 24, 2012

Plaintiff's Responsive Claim Construction Brief

(LPR 4.2(c))

February 21, 2013

Defendant's Reply Claim Construction Brief

(LPR 4.2(d))

March 7, 2013

Deadline for Supplementation under Rule 26(e) March 7, 2013

Joint Claim Construction Chart

(LPR 4.2(f))

March 14, 2013

Claim Construction Hearing (LPR 4.3)

(Unless otherwise ordered by the Court)

April 11, 2013

Fact Discovery Re-Opens (LPR 1.3) 28 Days After 

Ruling on Claims 

Construction

Fact Discovery Closes (LPR 1.3) 42 Days After 

Ruling on Claims 

Construction

Initial Expert Disclosures (LPR 5.1(b)) 21 Days After Fact 

Discovery Closes

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures (LPR 5.1(c)) 35 Days After Fact 

Discovery Closes

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:286
6

#11195733_v1

Deadline to Complete Expert Depositions; Close of Expert Discovery

(LPR 5.2)

35 Days After 

Rebuttal 

Disclosures

Dispositive Motion Deadline (LPR 6.1) 28 Days After 

Close of Expert 

Discovery

Dated: May 3, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC. 

/s/ Daniel L. Farris

R. David Donoghue 

Daniel L. Farris 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

131 South Dearborn Street, 30th floor

Chicago, IL 60603

Tel: (312) 263-3600 

Fax: (312)578-6666

david.donoghue@hklaw.com

daniel.farris@hklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:287
7

#11195733_v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Daniel Farris, certify that on May 3, 2012, I personally caused to be served, by CM/ECF, 

electronic mail, and/or by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Postal Service first 

class mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of J.C. Penney's Status and Scheduling Report 

to: 

Steven G. Lisa (Ill. State Bar # 6187348)

Jon E. Kappes (Ill. State Bar # 6291678)

Timothy Sperling (Ill. State Bar # 6283854)

Law Offices of Steven G. Lisa, Ltd. 

55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3210

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Michael R. Weiner

(mweiner@marshallip.com)

Julianne M. Hartzell

(jhartzell@marshallip.com)

Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP

233 South Wacker Drive

6300 Sears Tower

Chicago, IL 60606

Brian M. Buroker

bburoker@gibsondunn.com

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Kenneth Richieri

(richierk@nytimes.com)

The New York Times Company

620 Eighth Avenue, 17th Floor

New York, New York 10018

Michael M. Markman

mmarkman@cov.com

Robert Williams

rwilliams@cov.com

Covington & Burling, LLP

One Front Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

David M. Airan

dairan@leydig.com

John K. Winn

jwinn@leydig.com

Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd.

Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900

Chicago, Il 60601-6731

/s/ Daniel L. Farris

Daniel L. Farris

Case: 1:11-cv-09143 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/03/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:288