From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Renesas Technology Corp. v. Nanya Technology Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Mar 31, 2005
Case No. C 03-5709 JF (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. C 03-5709 JF (HRL).

March 31, 2005

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER HEDGES, LLP, Victoria F. Maroulis, R. Tulloss Delk, Redwood City, CA, JENNER BLOCK LLP, Donald R. Harris, Terrence J. Truax, Reginald J. Hill, Stephen M. Geissler, Joseph A. Saltiel, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant. Renesas Technology Corp.

ORRICK HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE LLP. William L. Anthony, Jr., Craig R. Kaufman, Kai Tseng, Rowena Young, Menlo Park, CA, Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Nanya Technology Corp. and, Nanya Technology Corporation, USA.


JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE


The parties through their respective counsel hereby stipulate as follows:

1. This Court held a case management conference on March 10, 2006 to discuss supplemental claim construction briefing in the present case. As a result of the hearing, the Court entered an order vacating the original dates for the Markman hearing and tutorial and setting new dates. The Court also entered a schedule for supplemental claim construction briefing. Dates for the supplemental briefing schedule were not discussed at the case management conference.

2. According to the schedule entered by the Court on March 16, 2006, opening briefs are due March 31, 2006, oppositions are due by April 14, 2006, and replies are due by April 21, 2006. The Court scheduled the tutorial and subsequent Markman hearing for May 17 and 18, 2006.

3. Immediately after the case management conference, attorneys for Plaintiff Renesas Technology Corp. ("Renesas") and Defendant Nanya Technology Corp. and Nanya Technology Corp. USA (collectively "Nanya") met and conferred to discuss a schedule for the supplemental claim construction briefing requested by the Court during the case management conference. The parties agreed that Renesas' supplemental opening brief would be due by April 7, 2006, Nanya's supplemental brief would be due by April 21, 2006, and that Renesas' reply would be due by April 28, 2006.

4. After receiving the Court's March 16, 2006 Minute Order, the parties again conferred regarding the schedule for supplemental claim construction briefing and, after considering the time needed to finalize a Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Statement and then complete briefing, the parties believe that, if acceptable to the Court, the schedule to which the parties originally agreed — April 7 for Supplemental Opening Brief; April 21 for Supplemental Response Brief; and April 28 for Supplemental Reply Brief — would be preferable and still allow nearly three weeks prior to the claim construction hearing scheduled for May 17 and 18, 2006.

5. Accordingly Renesas and Nanya respectfully request the entry by the Court of the attached Proposed Order revising the schedule for supplemental claim construction briefing. The dates for the tutorial and Markman hearing remain unchanged.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the prior agreement by the parties regarding the supplemental claim construction briefing schedule, hereby vacates the briefing schedule set forth in its March 16, 2006 Minute Order and sets the following schedule for the supplemental claim construction briefing:

Renesas' supplemental opening brief shall be due by April 7, 2006;
Nanya's supplemental response brief shall be due by April 21, 2006; and
Renesas' supplemental reply brief shall be due by April 28, 2006.

All other dates in the March 16, 2006 Minute Order remain unchanged.


Summaries of

Renesas Technology Corp. v. Nanya Technology Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Mar 31, 2005
Case No. C 03-5709 JF (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2005)
Case details for

Renesas Technology Corp. v. Nanya Technology Corp.

Case Details

Full title:RENESAS TECHNOLOGY CORP., Plaintiff, v. NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP., and NANYA…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Mar 31, 2005

Citations

Case No. C 03-5709 JF (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2005)

Citing Cases

Vistan Corp. v. Fadei, USA, Inc.

Id. Plaintiff argues that the Patent Local Rules require only that the disclosures put Defendants on adequate…