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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER; PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:

TWO CLAIM TERMS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 12/4/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and VIA

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (USA),

Defendants.

No. C-05-01668 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER;

PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

RE: TWO CLAIM TERMS

[Re Docket Nos. 204, 209]

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. C-05-01766 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER;

PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

RE: TWO CLAIM TERMS

[Re Docket No. 139, 144]

The court previously asked for the parties to brief and argue claim construction and summary

judgment together. On October 22, 2007, the court issued its claim construction order in the abovecaptioned cases. In its claim construction order, the court did not select one of the constructions

proposed by the parties for two terms, "bus" and "SNOOP signal," instead providing its own

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 215 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER; PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:

TWO CLAIM TERMS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG 2

constructions based on the patents, argument and evidence presented ("independently-construed

terms"). The court has not yet ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. 

The parties have recently filed two motions with the court. Plaintiff Computer Cache

Coherency Corporation ("CCCC") asks the court for permission to submit a five-page supplemental

brief regarding the parties' currently-pending cross-motions for summary judgment to supplement

their summary judgment arguments in light of the independently construed terms. Defendants Intel

Corporation ("Intel") and Via Technologies, Inc. ("Via") separately seek an order deferring the

deadline for serving their final invalidity contentions until twenty days after the court rules on those

summary judgment. 

A. Motion for Administrative Relief

Intel and Via contend that no additional briefing is necessary for the court to make its

determinations on the pending summary judgment motions. Defendants argue that the court's

constructions for the independently construed terms are not substantively different from the parties'

proposed constructions and that CCCC's supplemental briefing is merely an effort to reassert

previously-rejected arguments. The court does not necessarily agree that its constructions are

insubstantially different from those proposed by the defendants and therefore finds permitting CCCC

to file its supplemental briefing to be appropriate. Further, it would be helpful to the court to have

briefing from both plaintiff and defendants. Accordingly, the court grants CCCC's motion to file its

supplemental brief and gives defendants until December 21, 2007 to submit a responsive pleadings

(either jointly or separately) which shall be no more than eight (8) pages in total length.

B. Motion for Scheduling Order

Under Patent Local Rule 3-6, a party's final infringement contentions are due thirty days after

service of the court's claim construction ruling. A party's final invalidity contentions are due fifty

days after service of the claim construction ruling. As set forth above, the court's claim construction

order issued on October 22, 2007, so under Patent Local Rule 3-6 CCCC's final infringement

contentions were due November 21, 2007. CCCC filed its final infringement contentions on that

date. Intel and Via's final invalidity contentions will be due December 11, 2007. Because the court

has not ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, some of which involve issues

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 215 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 Notably, and seemingly at odds with the expressed concern about proceeding quickly following

the summary judgment rulings, CCCC filed a motion to amend its complaint to assert new products

only two days after filing its opposition to defendants' motion regarding scheduling disclosures. 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER; PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:

TWO CLAIM TERMS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG 3

relating to invalidity, Intel and Via ask that the court permit them to file their final invalidity

contentions 20 days after the court issues its ruling on the summary judgment motions. They assert

that the court's ruling may obviate the need for some of their invalidity disclosures and may have an

impact on the parties' contentions going forward. 

CCCC opposes, arguing that the Patent Local Rules do not permit modification of invalidity

and infringement positions based upon arguments made on summary judgment, rather only permit

such modification if a party believes "in good faith that the Court's Claim Construction Ruling so

requires." Patent L.R. 3-6(b)(2). CCCC asserts that defendants' request would delay the progress of

the case and prejudice CCCC, arguing that only if the parties move forward with their final

disclosures will the case proceed expeditiously following the court's rulings on the motions for

summary judgment.1

The main prejudice to CCCC if the court grants the relief defendants seek is that defendants

now have CCCC's final infringement contentions and will potentially have the advantage of viewing

the court's application of the claim construction. Nevertheless, CCCC knew prior to the day they

served their final infringement contentions that defendants intended to seek additional time to file

their final invalidity contentions but nevertheless proceeded to file their final infringement

contentions. See Decl. Jennifer Ochs ¶ 2 (on November 13, 2007, counsel for Via informed counsel

for CCCC that defendants viewed proceeding with disclosures wasteful without the court's summary

judgment rulings). The court recognizes that CCCC has commendably followed the disclosure

requirements but also finds no prejudice will result from allowing defendants to await a ruling from

the court before filing final invalidity contentions, particularly since the court will first allow

plaintiffs to further revise their infringement contentions after receipt of the summary judgment

ruling. 

The court finds good cause to permit defendants to file their final invalidity contentions after

it rules on the summary judgment motions, but also believes that CCCC should be permitted to reCase 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 215 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER; PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:

TWO CLAIM TERMS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG 4

serve its final infringement contentions following such rulings. Accordingly, the court will alter the

schedule set forth in the Patent Local Rules as follows: (1) CCCC will be permitted to re-serve its

final infringement contentions ten (10) calendar days after the court has issued orders on all pending

summary judgment motions argued contemporaneously with the claim construction; (2) defendants

will be permitted to file their final invalidity contentions and willfulness election under Patent L.R.

3-8 twenty (20) calendar days after the court has issued orders on all such summary judgment

motions. 

DATED: 12/4/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 215 Filed 12/04/07 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER; PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:

TWO CLAIM TERMS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com

Lawrence M. Hadley hadleyl@hbdlawyers.com

Omer Salik saliko@hbdlawyers.com

Counsel for Defendants:

James P. Bennett jbennett@mofo.com

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com

Joseph V Colaianni , Jr Colaianni@fr.com

Paul Forrest Coyne pcoyne@mofo.com

John Michael Farrell jfarrell@fr.com

Karl J. Kramer kkramer@mofo.com,sdevol@mofo.com

Jennifer A. Ochs jochs@wsgr.com,lwang@wsgr.com

Timothy Wayne Riffe Riffe@fr.com,conway@fr.com,gwilliams@fr.com

Thomas L. Treffert TTreffert@mofo.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 12/4/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 215 Filed 12/04/07 Page 5 of 5