Feeney, Inc. v. The Cable Connection et al
Filing
28
ORDER STAYING LITIGATION; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES. The action is stayed. The deadline for the parties to file a Case Management Statement and the September 7, 2012 Initial Case Management Conference are adjourned sine die. The parties are directed to f ile, no later than one year from the date of this order and every 365 days thereafter, a Joint Status Report to apprise the Court of the status of the reexamination proceeding. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 21, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Erik L. Jackson (State Bar No. 166010)
ejackson@cozen.com
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213.892.7900
Facsimile: 213.892.7999
Martin B. Pavane (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
mpavane@cozen.com
Marilyn Neiman (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
mneiman@cozen.com
COZEN O’CONNOR
277 Park Avenue
New York, NY 101722
Telephone: 212.883.4900
Facsimile: 212.656.1692
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FEENEY, INC.
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15
16
FEENEY, INC.,
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CABLE CONNECTION and
ULTRA-TEC CORPORATION,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-CV-01374 MMC
JOINT STIPULATION AND
PROPOSED ORDER
STAYING LITIGATION ; ORDER
STAYING LITIGATION; DIRECTIONS
TO PARTIES
22
23
Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 7-12 of the United States District Court for the Northern
24
District of California, the parties, Plaintiff Feeney, Inc. (“Feeney”) and Defendants The Cable
25
Connection and Ultra-Tec Corporation (collectively, “Cable Connection”), through their
26
undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER STAYING LITIGATION
Feeney, Inc. v. The Cable Connection, et al.,
Civ. No. 12-cv-01374 MMC
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
WHEREAS, Feeney filed, on March 19, 2012, its complaint in the above-captioned action
alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE43,194 (“the ‘194 Patent”) [D.E. 1];
WHEREAS, Cable Connection filed its answer to Feeney’s complaint on August 3, 2012
[D.E. 18];
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2012, Magistrate Judge Corley entered an Order Setting Initial
Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines [D.E. 3];
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2012, Magistrate Judge Corley granted Feeney’s ex parte
application to adjourn the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management
Conference and ADR Deadlines [D.E. 6];
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2012, this case was reassigned to the Honorable Maxine M.
Chesney and all hearing dates scheduled before Magistrate Judge Corley were vacated [D.E. 9];
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, this Court entered a Case Management Conference Order
[D.E. 10];
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2012, this Court entered an Order re Plaintiff’s Ex Parte
Application to Reschedule Deadlines in Case Management Conference Order [D.E. 12], requiring
the parties to file a Case Management Statement by August 31, 2012, and setting an Initial Case
Management Conference for September 7, 2012;
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2012, Cable Connection filed with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) a request seeking inter partes reexamination of the ‘194 Patent,
and that request is pending before the Patent Office;
WHEREAS, good cause exists for a stay of this litigation in its entirety as, inter alia: (1) a
stay would conserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources; (2) the results of the reexamination of the
‘194 Patent would allow the Court and the parties to benefit from the Patent Office’s expertise in
addressing the validity of the ‘194 Patent and avoid simultaneous and duplicative proceedings before
this Court and the Patent Office; (3) a stay pending the Patent Office’s resolution of inter partes
reexamination proceedings is likely to simplify the issues in question and any trial in this litigation;
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER STAYING LITIGATION
Feeney, Inc. v. The Cable Connection, et al.,
Civ. No. 12-cv-01374 MMC
2
NYC_MIDTOWN\1971715\1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
and (4) the discovery in this litigation has not yet commenced (see Research In Motion, Ltd. v. Visto.
Corp., 545 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2008));
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by and between the parties, subject to the
approval of the Court:
1.
The above-captioned litigation is stayed in its entirety: (1) until the Patent Office
denies Cable Connection’s request for inter partes reexamination, or (2) if the Patent Office grants
Cable Connection’s request for inter partes reexamination, until the Patent Office issues an inter
partes reexamination certificate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §316(a).
2.
Promptly after the occurrence of an event specified in paragraph 1 above, counsel
shall jointly or separately advise the Court of the outcome of the inter partes reexamination
proceeding and propose further proceedings herein in view thereof.
12
13
FEENEY, INC.
THE CABLE CONNECTION and
ULTRA-TEC CORPORATION
By: /s/ Erik L. Jackson___________
Erik L. Jackson (Ca. Bar No. 166010)
ejackson@cozen.com
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213.892.7900
Facsimile: 213.892.7999
By:/s/ Marc N. Bernstein___________
Marc N. Bernstein (Ca. Bar No. 145837)
Email: mbernstein@blgrp.com
THE BERNSTEIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
WILL B. FITTON (CA SBN 182818)
Email: wfitton@blgrp.com
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1650
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 765-6633
Facsimile: (415) 283-4804
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Martin B. Pavane (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice)
mpavane@cozen.com
Marilyn Neiman (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice)
mneiman@cozen.com
COZEN O’CONNOR
277 Park Avenue
New York, NY 101722
Telephone: 212.883.4900
Facsimile: 212.656.1692
HOLLAND & HART LLP
TIMOTHY P. GETZOFF (Admitted Pro
Hac Vice)
Email: tpgetzoff@hollandhart.com
1800 Broadway, Suite 300
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Telephone: (303) 473-2734
Facsimile: (303) 473-2720
25
26
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FEENEY, INC.
Attorneys for Defendants
THE CABLE CONNECTION and
ULTRA-TEC CORPORATION
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER STAYING LITIGATION
Feeney, Inc. v. The Cable Connection, et al.,
Civ. No. 12-cv-01374 MMC
3
NYC_MIDTOWN\1971715\1
1
2
3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, and it is further ordered that the
deadline for the parties to file a Case Management Statement and the September 7, 2012 Initial Case
4
Management Conference are adjourned sine die. The parties are DIRECTED to file, no later than
5 one year from the date of this order and every 365 days thereafter, a Joint Status Report to apprise
the Court of the status of the reexamination proceeding.
6
7
8
_____________________________
The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney
United States District Judge
Dated: August 21, 2012
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER STAYING LITIGATION
Feeney, Inc. v. The Cable Connection, et al.,
Civ. No. 12-cv-01374 MMC
4
NYC_MIDTOWN\1971715\1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
