Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 103 Filed 11/12/13 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:1299
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`Priority
`
`Send
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Enter
`
`Closed
`
`JS-5/JS-6
`
`Scan Only
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: see cases below
`TITLE:
`1.
`CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx) Black Hills Media LLC v. Pioneer Corporation, et al.
`2.
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx) Black Hills Media LLC v. Yamaha Corporation of America
`3.
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx) Black Hills Media LLC v. Sonos Inc.
`
`DATE: November 12, 2013
`
`========================================================================
`PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Victor Cruz
`Courtroom Clerk
`
`Margarita Ramirez
`Court Recorder
`
`COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
`
`COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
`
`Matthew C. Lapple
`Robert R. Gilman
`Jonathan R. Deblois
`
`Robert S. Hill
`Harold A. Barza
`David Fehrman
`Alex S. Yap
`Jared W. Miller
`Vincent J. Belusko
`Christohper D. Butts
`George I. Lee
`Donald L. Ridge
`
`========================================================================
`PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
`
`Hearing held.
`
`The parties present their respective technology tutorials.
`
`The Court and counsel confer regarding claim construction, discovery, experts, reports and
`scheduling issues.
`
`Based on this discussion, the Court sets the following dates in this matter and all related cases.
`All related cases are to abide by the following schedule:
`
`Event [with corresponding N.D. Cal. Patent Local
`Rule ("P.L.R.") specified where applicable]
`Disclosure of all documents evidencing Plaintiff's
`ownership of the patent rights [P.L.R. 3-2(d)]
`
`November 15, 2013
`
`Due Date
`
`MINUTES FORM 11
`CIVIL GEN
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
` 1 : 27
`Initials of Preparer vpc
`
`SONOS 1005 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 103 Filed 11/12/13 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:1300
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: see cases below
`
`DATE: November 12, 2013
`
`Disclosure of Plaintiff's Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions and accompanying
`document production [P.L.R. 3-1 and 3-2]
`Deadline to amend pleadings and add new parties
`Disclosure of Defendants' Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions and accompanying documentation
`production [P.L.R. 3-3 and 3-4]
`Exchange claim terms needing construction
`Exchange of preliminary claim constructions
`Joint Claim Construction Chart and Prehearing
`Statement [P.L.R. 4-3]
`Discovery cut-off for claim construction discovery
`[P.L.R. 4-4]
`Plaintiff's claim construction brief [P.L.R. 4-5(a)]
`Defendants' claim construction responsive briefs
`[P.L.R. 4-5(b)]
`Plaintiff's claim construction reply brief [P.L.R. 4-5(c)]
`Claim construction hearing [P.L.R. 4-6]
`Fact discovery cut-off
`
`December 12, 2013
`
`December 12, 2013
`January 27, 2014
`
`February 17, 2014
`March 3, 2014
`March 31, 2014
`
`April 28, 2014
`
`May 19, 2014
`June 2, 2014
`
`June 9, 2014
`June 23, 2014
`August 4, 2014
`
`Disclosure of opening expert report(s)
`Disclosure of rebuttal expert report(s)
`Expert discovery cut-off
`Last day to hear dispositive motions
`Final Pretrial Conference
`Jury Trial
`
`September 1, 2014
`September 29, 2014
`December 1, 2014
`February 9, 2015
`Monday, March 2, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
`Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
`
`The Court does not set a different schedule for the litigation of any patents uniquely asserted
`against Sonos Inc. ("Sonos").
`At the November 12 Scheduling Conference, the Court ordered Plaintiff to disclose documents
`evidencing its ownership of the Patents-in-Suit by November 15, 2013, pursuant to Rule 26(a).
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`SONOS 1005 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 103 Filed 11/12/13 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:1301
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: see cases below
`
`DATE: November 12, 2013
`
`All discovery was stayed until Plaintiff produced these documents. On November 15, 2013,
`Plaintiff filed Notice of Black Hill's Chain of Title Regarding the Patents-in-Suit ("Notice of Chain
`of Title") (ECF No. 100). However, in this Notice of Chain of Title, Plaintiff only lists the past and
`present owners of the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiff does not appear to have provided documents or
`other evidence demonstrating the validity of the claimed transfers of ownership to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
`must provide this evidence no later than November 25, 2013. Until Plaintiff does so, all discovery
`in this case remains stayed.
`
`The parties are reminded that under Rule 37(c)(1), the Court may issue sanctions for failure to
`disclose information properly pursuant to Rule 26.
`
`Prior to the claim construction hearing, Plaintiff shall not assert more than thirty-two (32) claims
`against Defendants. No later than fourteen (14) days after the Court issues the claim construction
`order and before expert reports are disclosed, Plaintiff shall reduce the number of its asserted
`claims to no more than sixteen (16).
`
`Similarly, prior to the claim construction hearing, Defendants are limited to no more than eighty
`(80) prior art references, with no more than fifteen (15) prior art references per patent. No later
`than twenty-eight (28) days after the Court issues the claim construction order, Defendants shall
`reduce the number of prior art references to forty (40), with no more than eight (8) references
`asserted against any single patent. The Court retains discretion to modify based on a
`particularized showing of good cause.
`
`The Court will limit the parties to ten (10) claim terms for construction. However, the Court grants
`Sonos and Plaintiff an additional three (3) claim terms in patents asserted uniquely against Sonos.
`The Court encourages parties to be as specific as possible. The parties may stipulate that certain
`terms from different patents are identical in scope and meaning.
`
`The Court will enter a modified version of the parties' stipulated E-Discovery and Protective
`Orders.
`
`Plaintiff may take up to five (5) individual party fact witness depositions of up to seven (7) hours
`each from each Defendant (excluding Sonos). This does not include 30(b)(6) deposition testimony
`or depositions of third parties or non-parties, which are limited pursuant to the parties' agreements
`in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report (ECF No. 90). Plaintiff may take up to fifteen (15) individual party
`fact witness depositions from Sonos.
`
`Sonos is limited to fifteen (15) individual fact depositions from Plaintiff of up to seven (7) hours
`each. The remaining Defendants are limited to five (5) individual party fact witness depositions
`of up to seven (7) hours each as outlined in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. The Court may modify
`the limits on the number of individual fact depositions with good cause shown.
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`SONOS 1005 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 103 Filed 11/12/13 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:1302
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: see cases below
`
`DATE: November 12, 2013
`
`Defendants may seek discovery on the prosecution and enforceability of the Patents-in-Suit;
`however, depositions of individuals involved in patent prosecution, other than the inventors
`themselves, shall count towards the limit for individual party fact witness depositions.
`
`Plaintiff is limited to three expert witnesses: one on the issue of infringement, one on the issue
`of invalidity, and one on the issue of damages. Defendants are limited to a single common expert
`witness on the issue of invalidity, and each Defendant may present its own expert witness on the
`issues of infringement and on damages.
`
`Each Defendant will have a total of twenty-one (21) hours for expert depositions of Plaintiff's
`experts. Each Defendant may divide these hours between Plaintiff's experts as it chooses.
`Plaintiff is allotted a total of fourteen (14) hours for Defendants' single common expert on invalidity,
`and is allotted a total of seven (7) hours for each of Defendants' expert witnesses on infringement
`and damages, and Plaintiff may divide these hours between each Defendants' set of experts as
`it chooses.
`
`The Court limits Defendants' dispositive motions to the following: one joint motion for summary
`judgment on the issue of invalidity; one joint motion for summary judgment on the issue of
`inducement; and one motion for summary judgment from each Defendant on the issue of
`infringement.
`
`At the Final Pretrial Conference, the Court will determine the proper format of the trial, including
`whether Defendants will be consolidated for the purposes of trial and the appropriate sequence
`of trials.
`
`The Court will not grant extensions on discovery.
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`SONOS 1005 - Page 4
`
`