New Pacer--REQUEST FOR A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE REGARDING BARCO’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 5,809,336; U.S. PATENT NO. 5,440,749; AND U.S. PATENT NO. 5,530,890

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
BARCO N.V., a Belgian corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP., and ALLIACENSE LTD.,
Defendant.

REQUEST FOR A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE REGARDING BARCO’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 5,809,336;
U.S. PATENT NO. 5,440,749; AND U.S. PATENT NO. 5,530,890

Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 297) of October 5, 2011 (the “Scheduling Order”), Plaintiff Barco N.V. (“Barco”) hereby submits this Request for a Case Management Conference regarding Barco’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Technology Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively “TPL”) Infringement Contentions (ICs) for U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (‘336 patent), U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749 (‘749 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890 (‘890 patent) (hereinafter referred to as “Motion to Strike”).Barco has already filed its Motion to Strike Portions of TPL’s Infringement Contentions, which Barco did not initially treat as a Dispositive Motion. However, in a telephone conference on December 16, 2011 between the plaintiffs and defendants, the appointed Special Master, Mr. Denver, decided Barco’s Motion to Strike should be treated as dispositive and directed Barco to follow the procedures outlined in the Scheduling Order for Dispositive Motions, leading to this request. I. UNDISPUTED FACTUAL BASES FOR BARCO’S MOTION TO STRIKE In their Infringement Contentions, Defendants rely on printed publications or products that are not related to any of the accused products to “show” that Barco infringes the ‘336 patent, the ‘749 patent, and the ‘890 patent. The ‘336 Patent. In particular, TPL’s Infringement Contentions rely on either one or a combination of publications by: Zuchowski (titled “Process and Environmental Variation Impacts on ASIC Timing”); Sundaresan (titled “A 7-MHz Process, Temperature and Supply Compensated Clock Oscillator in 0.25µm CMOS”); and Fetzer (titled “Using Adaptive Circuits to Mitigate Process Variations in a Microprocessor Design”). These publications do not indicate or suggest that they are related to any Barco products and TPL does not explain how these publications are pertinent to the accused Barco products. TPL’s Infringement Contentions also rely on a ViewSonic Projector, a Texas Instruments Projector (described on a Rambus Webpage), or a Toshiba Color Television to “show” how Barco products infringe. However, Barco does not make products for ViewSonic Projectors, Texas Instruments Projectors, or Toshiba Televisions, and these companies do not make Barco Projectors. Case3:08-cv-05398-In other words, the ViewSonic Projector, Texas Instruments Projector, and Toshiba Television are completely irrelevant to Barco’s alleged infringement.Finally, TPL accuses Barco of infringing the ‘336 patent because Barco uses particular third-party Integrated Circuits (or “chips”) in its products, but TPL relies on chips other than the accused chips in its Infringement Contentions. Specifically, TPL accuses the Texas Instruments DDP3020 chip of infringing, but relies on three other chips, the DDP1000, DDP2000, and DDP2030, to “show” infringement. TPL also accuses: the Texas Instruments DDP1011 but relies on the DDP1000 and DDP2000; a PPC406GPr but relies on a Cortina LXT971; and an LSI TTB4398A0 but relies on an ARM7TDMI core. TPL has not shown that there is any link between the allegedly infringing features of the accused chips and the other, non-accused chips. The ‘749 Patent.As with TPL’s ICs for the ‘336 patent, TPL relies on the unrelated Zuchowski publication for at least one claim limitation of the ‘749 patent. As noted above, the Zuchowski publication has no connection with the accused products, and TPL does not explain how this publication is pertinent to any Barco product. Further, as with its ICs for the ‘336 patent, TPL relies on several non-Barco products: a ViewSonic Projector or a Texas Instruments Projector (described on a Rambus Webpage). These non-Barco products have no connection with the accused products. Finally, TPL accuses the Texas Instruments DDP3020 of infringing, but relies on three other chips, the DDP1000, DDP2000, and DDP2030, to “show” infringement.

The ‘890 Patent.

As with its ICs for the ‘336 and ‘749 patents, TPL’s Infringement Contentions rely on a ViewSonic Projector or a Texas Instruments Projector (described on a Rambus Webpage) to “show” how Barco products infringe. Further, like the ICs for the ‘749 patent, TPL accuses the Texas Instruments DDP3020 of infringing, but relies on three other chips, the DDP1000, DDP2000, and DDP2030, to “show” infringement.

II. LEGAL BASES FOR BARCO’S MOTION TO STRIKE

This District's Patent Local Rules (P.L.R.s) require parties to identify “specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” Patent Local Rule 3-1(c); Barco N.V. v. Tech. Props. Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106431, *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (Dkt. 223); Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166, *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011); LG Electronics Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 366 (N.D. Cal. December 4, 2002). As discussed above, to the extent they rely on products that have no relationship to the accused products, TPL’s contentions do not identify “specifically where each limitation is found within each Accused Instrumentality.”

I. CONCLUSION

Barco’s counsel has communicated with TPL’s counsel, and agreement has been reached regarding a briefing and hearing schedule. In view of the Special Master’s decision that Barco’s motion is dispositive, Barco requests that, if the proposed schedule below is adopted, the previously scheduled hearing date of January 23, 2012, be vacated. Because Barco’s primary counsel is in Chicago, the dates below that require counsel’s presence in court have been timed to coincide with other events in this case or one of the related cases that would also require the presence of Barco’s counsel in California.
Brief Date
1
Barco’s Opening Motion to Strike Portions of TPL’s Infringement Contentions
Friday, December 9, 2011
2
Dispositive Motion CMC
Thursday, January 26, 2012 (coincides with the claim construction tutorial).
3
TPL’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
Friday, February 3, 2012
4
Barco’s Reply
Friday, February 17, 2012
5
Hearing Date
Monday, February 27, 2012 (coincides with HTC v. TPL Summary Judgment Hearing).
Dated: December 21, 2011
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
By: s/ Edward K. Runyan
Edward K. Runyan
Attorneys for Plaintiff Barco