throbber
Case 3:19-cv-02241-WHA Document 19 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG,
`Defendant.
` /
`
`No. C 19-02241 WHA
`
`NOTICE REGARDING
`CASE MANAGEMENT
`
`This notice sets forth the Court’s tentative view of how this case should be managed.
`This is based on a review of the complaint. Counsel should take this notice into account at the
`Rule 26(f) conference. The Court is, of course, open to persuasion to different approaches.
`In this action for declaratory relief, Intel seeks a declaratory judgment that certain of
`its products do not infringe any valid claim of the twelve patents at issue assigned to defendant.
`Under these circumstances, defendant is entitled to full discovery from Intel on the products
`for which a declaratory judgment is sought, subject only to reasonable proportionality.
`Otherwise, it would be unfair to impose a judgment against the patent owner holding that
`Intel’s products have a clean bill of health. The burden is not on the patent owner. Due to
`Intel’s having commenced this action, the burden is on Intel to prove it does not infringe.
`No motions relating to infringement or validity shall be filed by Intel until after the
`patent owner has had a full and fair opportunity for discovery to meet the issues raised by Intel.
`It shall not be an excuse to deny or delay discovery on the ground that Intel also contends that
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`PACT - Ex. 2018.0001
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241-WHA Document 19 Filed 05/23/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`one or more claims-in-suit are invalid. Any failure by Intel to produce such full and fair
`discovery may well lead to a dismissal of Intel’s entire action, for he who seeks equity
`(a declaration of no infringement) must do equity (provide full and fair discovery).
`All discovery shall be supervised by a magistrate judge to be selected.
`After full and fair discovery has been allowed, as will initially be determined by the
`magistrate judge, the patent owner shall be required to disclose its infringement contentions
`and to file any infringement counterclaims (and answer).
`The only motion for summary judgment that may be made before the completion of
`discovery shall be a motion for summary judgment based on the alleged covenant not to sue.
`After that motion is filed, the opposing side may have eight weeks of discovery (on that motion)
`prior to filing its opposition.
`No trial date shall be set until all discovery has been completed.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 23, 2019.
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`2
`
`PACT - Ex. 2018.0002
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket