`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`In re EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`Case Nos. 3:19-cv-06559-RS
`3:20-cv-06152-RS
`3:20-cv-08297-RS
`3:20-cv-08321-RS
`3:20-cv-08335-RS
`3:20-cv-08339-RS
`3:20-cv-08461-RS
`3:20-cv-08491-RS
`3:20-cv-08492-RS
`3:21-cv-01145-RS
`
`ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`SCHEDULE
`
`The parties have presented competing proposals for the claim construction schedule in
`these actions with respect to the RCB patents. Plaintiff’s proposed deadlines effectively follow the
`timing of the local rules as calculated from the filing dates of the newest cases. Defendants request
`dates approximately 30 days later. While plaintiff’s desire not to further delay older cases is
`understandable, the additional time defendants seek is within the range routinely granted as a
`matter of course with respect to the newer cases, and is of marginal effect in the older cases.
`Defendants’ proposed schedule will be adopted, with the claim construction hearing to be held on
`December 8, 2021.
`Defendants also seek clarification as to the scope of the stay previously imposed with
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2009-0001
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 51 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`respect to the Rempel patents. Plaintiff objects on procedural grounds that the parties’ joint report
`regarding their scheduling negotiations is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking clarification or
`reconsideration of the prior order. Although plaintiff’s procedural point has merit, judicial
`efficiency warrants providing clarification without soliciting further briefing.
`The stay order applied to “any remaining deadlines relating to claim construction as to the
`Rempel patents,” which was intended to refer to those deadlines set out under Local Patent Rule
`4—Claim Construction Proceeding. The deadlines under Rule 3—Patent disclosures, have not
`been stayed. Any potential inefficiencies based on a need to revise contentions or supplement
`document productions in light of future PTO actions do not rise to a level that warrants putting off
`that part of the litigation process.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 26, 2021
`
`______________________________________
`
`_____ ______________________________________________ ________________________
`RICHARD SEEBORG
`RICHARD SEEBORG
`Chief United States District Judge
`Chief United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 17-cv-02605-RS
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2009-0002
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
