From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jun 6, 2012
NO. C 08-04990 JW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2012)

Opinion

NO. C 08-04990 JW

06-06-2012

Mformation Techs., Inc., Plaintiff, v. Research in Motion Ltd., et al., Defendants.


ORDER REQUIRING JOINT

PRODUCTION OF PRETRIAL

MATERIALS

This case is scheduled for a Final Pretrial Conference on June 11, 2012, with jury selection set to take place on June 14, 2012. In order to prepare for the upcoming trial, the Court ORDERS the following:

(1) On or before June 11, 2012, the parties shall meet and confer and produce a joint timeline showing the undisputed facts in this case.
(2) On or before June 11, 2012, the parties shall meet and confer and produce a joint chart showing the remaining claims and defenses to be tried. The entries on the chart shall each include citations to the docket. Below is an example of the type of chart required:

The timeline shall depict the chronology along a horizontal axis.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦Stipulated ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Patent ¦ ¦Accused ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Construction/ ¦Product as ¦ ¦Defense ¦Factual ¦ ¦Claim/ ¦ ¦to Each ¦Damages ¦Asserted ¦Basis for ¦ ¦Elements ¦Court ¦Defendant ¦ ¦ ¦Defense ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Construction ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------+----------------+---------------+----------+-----------+----------¦ ¦'000 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Patent, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Claim 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------+----------------+---------------+----------+-----------+----------¦ ¦an ¦apparatus means:¦Riverside Model¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦apparatus ¦"a device which.¦2 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦comprising¦. ." ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------+----------------+---------------+----------+-----------+----------¦ ¦1. a ¦"handle" means a¦Riverside ¦ ¦the product¦ ¦ ¦handle ¦part held by the¦ ¦ ¦lacks a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦human hand ¦Model 2 ¦ ¦handle ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

As to each essential limitation of the claims remaining for trial, Plaintiff shall identify the component of the accused product that allegedly infringes each limitation. Further, as to each limitation and each component, Plaintiff shall identify whether the alleged infringement is direct or indirect, and if indirect, whether it is inducing or contributing.

Plaintiff shall indicate, as to each Defendant, whether the damages alleged are based on reasonable royalties, lost profits, or both.

Defendants shall identify each ground upon which they contend that the patent is invalid. Insofar as Defendants contend that the patent is invalid on the basis of anticipation, Defendants shall identify each prior art reference pertinent to that claim. Further, insofar as Defendants contend that the patent is invalid on the basis of obviousness, Defendants shall identify each reference pertinent to that claim.

As to each Defendant, Plaintiff shall identify whether it alleges that the Defendant willfully infringed.

As to any allegation that the accused product does not infringe an essential limitation of the claim, Defendants shall identify the limitation and summarize why they contend that the accused product does not infringe.

In addition, upon review of the pleadings, it appears that Defendants have asserted counterclaims that have never been subject to any motion practice. Insofar as the parties believe that any counterclaims remain to be tried, the parties shall indicate such counterclaims. Otherwise, Defendants shall confirm that no counterclaims remain to be tried.

The parties shall lodge the original and bring five (5) copies of the requested materials to the June 11 Conference.

______________________

JAMES WARE

United States District Chief Judge

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Aaron D. Charfoos acharfoos@kirkland.com

Allen A. Arntsen aarntsen@foley.com

Amardeep Lal Thakur athakur@foley.com

Christopher R. Liro christopher.liro@kirkland.com

Eugene Goryunov egoryunov@kirkland.com

Jessica Christine Kaiser jessica.kaiser@kirkland.com

Justin E. Gray jegray@foley.com

Linda S. DeBruin ldebruin@kirkland.com

Lisa Marie Noller lnoller@foley.com

Marc Howard Cohen marc.cohen@kirkland.com

Maria A. Maras maria.maras@kirkland.com

Meredith Zinanni meredith.zinanni@kirkland.com

Michael Anthony Parks mparks@thompsoncoburn.com

Michael Daley Karson michael.karson@kirkland.com

Michael S Feldberg michael.feldberg@allenovery.com

Shawn Edward McDonald SEMcDonald@foley.com

Tiffany Patrice Cunningham tiffany.cunningham@kirkland.com

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: ______________________

William Noble

Courtroom Deputy


Summaries of

Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jun 6, 2012
NO. C 08-04990 JW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2012)
Case details for

Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:Mformation Techs., Inc., Plaintiff, v. Research in Motion Ltd., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Jun 6, 2012

Citations

NO. C 08-04990 JW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2012)

Citing Cases

Snyder v. Bank of Am.

Van, 2016 WL 3566980, at *4 (excluding evidence of discovery disputes because the disputes did not bear on…

Henneberry v. City of Newark

Captain Macias was not listed on Defendants' witness disclosures, and the Court agrees with Plaintiff that…