For those unfamiliar with these cases, here is my brief overview taken from several of the Pacers previously posted by Wolfpackvoltare. Please note, there are many other pacers that I did not reference. Please look for Wolf’s posts on pacers. Tks Wolf
From the Sept 26, 2011 Pacer--JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
[RELATED CASES]
Description of Patents-in-Suit
ACER & HTC filed their respective declatory judgment actions on Feb 8, 2008
Barco filed its declatory judgment action on Dec 1, 2008
4 Patents-in Suit for Acer & HTC: ‘336, ‘749, ‘890, ‘148
3 Patents-in-Suit for Barco: ‘336, ‘749, ‘890
Generally speaking, the ‘336 patent is directed to the microprocessor system’s clocking mechanism while the ‘749 and ‘890 are directed towards the microprocessor system’s architectural features. The ‘148 relates to the microprocessor system’s memory
Judge Fogel stayed these cases for 18 mos due to pending re-exam proceedings
HTC filed a motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of ‘749,’336 & ‘148 on April 8, 2011. The briefing has been completed …no hearings have been set.
Barco previously filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the’336 on Dec 1, 2010. Judge Fogel denied the motion on March 8, 2011. Plaintiffs anticipate filing one or more motions for summary judgment.
H. Relief
Plaintiffs seek a declatory judgment against defendants for non infringement and invalidity of the patents in Suit. Defendants seek damages for patent infringement and injunctions for the patents in suit
L. Narrowing of Issues
The parties will file one or more dispositive motions seeking to narrow the issues. The parties anticipate filing one or more motions for summary judgment.
P. STATUS OF DISCOVERY
The parties have conducted claim construction discovery already and are engaged in fact discovery. Defendants have also initiated discovery with a number of third-party suppliers, including some foreign-based third-parties. Given the complexity of the issues in this case, additional document and deposition discovery will be needed after the issuance of the claim construction order in this case. The parties have previously agreed to close fact discovery six
months after the final invalidity contentions are due, which must be served 50 days after the issuance of the claim construction order. See, e.g., Dkt. 288 (in Acer action).
On Oct 5, 2011 Judge Ware issued a First patent scheduling order and notice of intent to appoint a special master. In that order it said: At the Tutorial, the parties shall be prepared to address the following procedural history:
(a) A review of Judge Ward’s claim construction order(s);
(b) A review of the PTO’s reexaminations and the impact, if any, those proceedings
have on these cases;
(c) A review of the claims identified in Defendant HTC’s Motion for Summary
Judgment of Non-Infringement as significant in resolving the Motion
On December 21, 2011
Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 297) of October 5, 2011 (the “Scheduling Order”), Plaintiff Barco N.V. (“Barco”) hereby submits this Request for a Case Management Conference regarding Barco’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Technology Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively “TPL”) Infringement Contentions (ICs) for U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (‘336 patent), U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749 (‘749 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890 (‘890 patent) (hereinafter referred to as “Motion to Strike”).Barco has already filed its Motion to Strike Portions of TPL’s Infringement Contentions, which Barco did not initially treat as a Dispositive Motion. However, in a telephone conference on December 16, 2011 between the plaintiffs and defendants, the appointed Special Master, Mr. Denver, decided Barco’s Motion to Strike should be treated as dispositive and directed Barco to follow the procedures outlined in the Scheduling Order for Dispositive Motions, leading to this request
On January 10, 2012
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for a Case Management Conference and
ORDERS as follows:
(1) On or before February 3, 2012, Defendants shall file their Opposition to the Motion
to Strike.
(2) On or before February 17, 2012, Plaintiff shall file its Reply.
(3) The January 23 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is continued to February 27,
2012 at 9 a.m.
Dated: January 10, 2012
(Signed By Judge)
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge
