New Pacer--JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
[RELATED CASES]

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 PSG

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
[RELATED CASES]

Date: September 4, 2012
Time: 2:00 pm.
Dept: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal
HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:08-cv-00882 PSG
BARCO N.V., a Belgian corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP.,
ALLIACENSE LTD.,
Defendants.

JOINT CMC STATEMENT

The parties from the three above-captioned actions, Plaintiffs Acer Inc., Acer America
Corp., and Gateway, Inc. (collectively “Acer”), HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc.
(collectively “HTC”) and Barco, N.V. (“Barco”), and Defendants Technology Properties Limited,
Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively “TPL” or “Defendants”),
respectfully submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement (“CMC Statement”)
pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2012 order (Docket No. 344 in the Acer action) setting the case
management conference on September 4, 2012.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND PATENTS-IN-SUIT

Acer and HTC filed their respective declaratory judgment actions on February 8, 2008,
while Barco filed its declaratory judgment action on December 1, 2008 as follows:
(1) The Acer Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00877);
(2) The HTC Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00882); and
(3) The Barco Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-05398).
All three actions above were related and originally assigned to Judge Fogel. Upon Judge
Fogel’s departure in October 2011, this case was reassigned to Chief Judge Ware. Because of
Judge Ware’s pending retirement in August 2012, this case has now been reassigned to this Court
per consent of the parties.
The four Patents-in-Suit in the Acer and HTC actions are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (the
“’336 Patent”), 5,440,749 (the “’749 Patent”), 5,530,890 (the “’890 Patent”) and 6,598,148 (the
“’148 Patent”) (collectively “Patents-in-Suit”). Three of the four patents—the ’336 Patent, the
’749 Patent, and the ’890 Patent—are at issue in the Barco action.
The four Patents-in-Suit, which share the same specification, are directed to different
aspects of a microprocessor system. Generally speaking, the ’336 Patent is directed to the
microprocessor system’s clocking mechanisms, while the ’749 and ’890 Patents are directed to the
microprocessor system’s architectural features. The ’148 Patent generally relates to the
microprocessor system’s memory.

II. CURRENT STATUS OF THE CASE

The actions are currently in the claim construction stage. Judge Ware conducted a
JOINT CMC STATEMENT
Markman hearing in January 2012 on ten claim terms. On June 12, 2012, Judge Ware issued a
First Claim Construction Order (Acer Dkt. No. 336). In the Order, Judge Ware requested
supplemental briefing with respect to two of the terms. There may be other unresolved claim
construction issues, and the parties may seek clarification or reconsideration on certain terms.
On July 2, 2012 and pursuant to the First Claim Construction Order, the parties submitted a
further Joint Statement regarding competing proposals for the supplemental claim construction
briefing and possible discovery. (Acer Dkt. No. 337). However, Judge Ware did not issue any
order regarding further claim construction briefing before the reassignment to this Court. The
Parties’ Proposed Schedule in the section below therefore includes a proposed briefing schedule
for the supplemental briefs specified in the First Claim Construction Order.
On July 24, 2012, Defendants filed eleven additional suits in this District, asserting
infringement of three of the four Patents-in-Suit (the ’749, ’890, and ’336 patents). Thus, in total,
there are fourteen separate actions pending in this District involving at least these three patents.
On August 24, 2012, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) published in the
Federal Register its intention to institute an investigation of infringement of the ’336 patent by
thirteen of the fourteen parties to the pending district court actions. See 77 FR 51572
(Investigation No. 337-TA-853). In addition to Acer and HTC, the ITC respondents include
Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Garmin, Huawei, Kyocera, LG Electronics, Nintendo, Novatel
Wireless, Samsung, Sierra Wireless, and ZTE.

III. PARTIES’ PROPOSED SCHEDULE

The parties have met and conferred, and hereby largely agree on a schedule for the
remainder of the claim construction briefing (save for one disagreement over the need for
additional expert depositions). However, Defendants believe that judicial economy would be best
served by waiting for the defendants in the newly-filed actions to answer the complaints, and
possibly consolidating these matters for purposes of discovery and claim construction.
A. Plaintiffs’ Position.
Plaintiffs believe that judicial economy would not be best served by waiting for the
defendants in the newly-filed actions for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment

(“DJ”) actions have been pending for over four and a half years – they are entitled to have the
pending issues in their DJ actions, including claim construction, resolved in a timely manner
without having to wait for eleven additional groups of accused infringers to catch up to the
schedule. Plaintiffs have already expended enormous resources to have their DJ actions resolved,
and waiting months or a year longer would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs and burden them with
additional litigation expenses while awaiting the coordination of eleven separate actions.
Second, clarification and additional construction by this Court on the remaining claim
terms would actually improve judicial economy by narrowing the issues in the subsequently filed
actions, likely encouraging informal resolution due to the certainty provided by additional claim
construction from this Court.
Third, Plaintiffs believe that it would be improper to consolidate the newly-filed actions
because the current actions are far enough along that further delay would be prejudicial to the
existing parties to the litigation. The newly added accused infringers sell a diversity of products
that bear little relationship to the products accused in Plaintiffs’ DJ actions. The parties in the DJ
actions have all agreed to the Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, whereas the additional eleven
accused infringer groups may not do so, thus making consolidation speculative at best, even if
permissible. See Body Science LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp., 846 F. Supp.2d 980, 991 (N.D. Ill.
Mar. 2012) (refusing to consolidate cases where there were a multitude of different products and
determining that consolidation would not promote judicial economy or efficiency); see also One-
E-Way Inc. v. Plantronics Inc. et al., 2:11-cv-06673, Dkt. No. 80 at 2 (CD Cal. January 19, 2012)
(finding that consolidation was inappropriate because “the defendants – who may have competing
interests and strategies – also are entitled to present individualized assaults on questions of noninfringement,
invalidity, and claim construction”).
Fourth, the remaining claim construction issues are narrow and readily resolvable by the
Court.1 The issues can readily be briefed by the parties already in the DJ actions, and have been
1 The claim construction issues that remain for resolution were raised in claim construction briefs
filed in late 2010 and early 2011, when the case was before Judge Fogel. The case was
subsequently reassigned to Judge Ware, and then upon his retirement, to this court. These events
were out of the control of Plaintiffs, but the effect of these events has been an undue delay in

largely identified in Judge Ware’s First Claim Construction Order. There would not be significant
resources spent resolving these remaining claim construction issues.
Should the Court be inclined to stay further claim construction for months to see if the
cases can be consolidated and a joint scheduled reached, it should be on the condition that TPL
agree to waive past damages from the time of filing of the newly filed actions. Otherwise, the
current Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by ongoing delay in the resolution of their DJ actions and
face continued uncertainty as to their rights.
B. Defendants’ Position.
Plaintiffs misunderstand Defendants’ proposal. As shown by the proposed schedule below,
Defendants are amenable to this Court taking up claim construction issues left open by Judge
Ware; indeed, Defendants stipulated to having this Court do just that.
However, there are now eleven new cases involving the same patents, the same claim
construction issues, and the same invalidity defenses. The risk of inconsistent rulings and
substantial duplication of judicial effort cannot be ignored. See Interactive Fitness Holdings, LLC
v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 10-CV-04628 LHK, 2011 WL 1302633, at *3 (N.D. Cal. April 5,
2011) (granting motion to transfer to avoid duplicative and potentially inconsistent claim
construction and infringement analyses that would inevitably result); see also Micron Tech. Inc. v.
Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645
F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (attempting to reconcile inconsistent factual determinations by two
district courts but ultimately remanding for further proceedings). For this reason, the Federal
Circuit has observed that “judicial economy plays a paramount role in trying to maintain an
orderly, effective, administration of justice and having one trial court decide all of these claims
clearly furthers that objective.” In re Google, Inc., 412 F. App’x 295, 296 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Consequently, the parties propose the following schedule with disagreements noted by
shading:
resolving the parties’ well-distilled claim construction disputes. Further delay would unduly
prejudice Plaintiffs.
Event Date
Exchange of expert declarations for
supplemental briefing
Sept. 14, 2012
Completion of expert discovery Plaintiffs
Sept. 28, 2012
Defendants
Defendants do not believe
that further expert
depositions are necessary
or helpful. The experts
have already been
deposed on claim
construction issues.
Exchange of opening supplemental
claim construction briefs
October 5, 2012
Exchange of responsive supplemental
claim construction briefs
October 26, 2012
Tutorials and hearing, if ordered by the
Court
Approximately 15 days after exchange of
responsive supplemental claim construction
briefs
Final infringement contentions2 Plaintiffs
30 days after the final
claim construction
ruling
Defendants
Defendants believe
judicial economy will
be served by waiting
until the defendants in
the newly-filed cases
have had the
opportunity to appear
and be heard
Final invalidity contentions3
Defendants to serve willfulness
documents; opinion of counsel
50 days after the final
claim construction
ruling
2 2 These two deadlines for final infringement and final invalidity contentions only apply to case
nos. 5:08-cv-0877 (Acer v. TPL) and 5:08cv-0882 (HTC v. TPL). Case no. 5:08-cv-05398 (Barco
v. TPL) was filed in December 2008 and operates under the Patent Local Rules that were in effect
after March 2008, which do not provide for final infringement or invalidity contentions absent
leave from Court.
Event Date
Close of fact discovery Six months after the
final invalidity
contentions
Initial expert reports 30 days after the close
of fact discovery
Rebuttal expert reports 30 days after the initial
expert reports
Close of expert discovery Two weeks after the
rebuttal expert reports
Trial To be determined

IV. LEGAL ISSUES

The principal legal issues that the Parties dispute are:
a. The construction of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
b. Whether the Plaintiffs infringe any of the Patents-in-Suit;
c. Whether any infringement by Plaintiffs, if proven, was willful;
d. Whether the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and/or unenforceable; and
e. Whether Intervening Rights are applicable due to amendments to the asserted
claims during reexamination of the Patents-In-Suit.
f. The amount of damages, if any, due to Defendants and potential entry of an
injunction.

V. MOTIONS AND ANTICIPATED MOTIONS

Barco previously filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’336
Patent on December 1, 2010. (Barco Dkt. No. 112.) Judge Fogel subsequently denied the motion
without prejudice on March 8, 2011. (Barco Dkt. No. 167.)
HTC previously filed a motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of the
’749, the ’336 and the ’148 Patents on April 8, 2011 prior to claim construction. (HTC Dkt. No.
293.) The motion was subsequently denied by Judge Ware as premature and without prejudice to
renewal after claim construction. (HTC Dkt. No. 361.)
Plaintiffs will be renewing these motions and will be filing additional motions for summary
judgment following the resolution of outstanding claim construction disputes.

VI. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
The parties do not anticipate filing any further amended pleadings at this time.

VII. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
All parties have been advised by their counsel to preserve all relevant evidence, including
electronically stored information, if any.

VIII. DISCLOSURES
The parties have complied with the initial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

IX. CLASS ACTIONS
This is not a class action case.

X. RELATED CASES THAT HAVE BEEN RESOLVED
(1) The ASUSTeK Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00884); and
(2) The Sirius XM Action (Case No. 3:10-cv-00816).

XI. RELIEF
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment against Defendants that they do not infringe any
asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit, and that the asserted claims are invalid and/or unenforceable.
Defendants seek damages for alleged patent infringement and injunctive relief.

XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR
Acer, HTC and TPL have engaged in mediation, but have not settled the disputes to date.
See Acer Dkt. No. 49 and HTC Dkt. No. 50. Barco was exempted from the mediation process.
See Barco Dkt. No. 53.

XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
The Parties have jointly consented to Magistrate Judge Grewal for all further proceedings
including trial and entry of judgment. (See Acer Dkt. No. 339.)

XIV. OTHER REFERENCES
The parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a
special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES
The Parties anticipate filing one or more dispositive motions, such as motions for summary
judgment, seeking to narrow the issues in this case.

XVI. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE
The Parties agree that this case is not suitable for expedited handling at this time.

XVII. TRIAL
The case will be tried to a jury. Parties expect the duration of the trial will depend on
numerous factors, including the dispositions of the pending and anticipated summary judgment
motions that cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings.

XVIII.DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
The Parties have filed Corporate Disclosure Statements pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7-1.

XIX. STATUS OF DISCOVERY
The parties have conducted claim construction discovery and are engaged in fact
discovery. Defendants have also initiated discovery with a number of third-party suppliers,
including some foreign-based third-parties. Given the complexity of the issues in this case, it is
expected that additional document and deposition discovery will be needed after the issuance of
the claim construction order. The parties have previously agreed to close fact discovery six
months after the final invalidity contentions are due, which must be served 50 days after the
issuance of the final claim construction order. (See, e.g., Acer Dkt. No. 288.)

XX. OTHER MATTERS
There are no other matters that the parties believe need to be addressed at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
[SIGNATURE BLOCKS START ON THE NEXT PAGE]
Dated: August 28, 2012
K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Timothy Walker
Timothy P. Walker, Esq.
Howard Chen, Esq.
Harold H. Davis, Jr., Esq.
Jas Dhillon, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Ratinoff
K&L Gates LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attorneys for Acer, Inc., Acer America
Corp. and Gateway, Inc.
Dated: August 28, 2012 COOLEY LLP
By: /s/ Kyle Chen
Kyle D. Chen, Esq.
Heidi L. Keefe, Esq.
Mark R. Weinstein, Esq.
Cooley LLP
3000 El Camino Real
Five Palo Alto Square, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94306
Attorneys for HTC Corporation and HTC
America, Inc.
Case5:08-cv-05398-PSG Document291 Filed08/28/12 Page10 of 12
Dated: August 28, 2012 BAKER & MCKENZIE
By: /s/ Edward Runyan
Edward Runyan, Esq.
Baker & McKenzie
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Attorneys for Barco, N.V.
Dated: August 28, 2012 AGILITY IP LAW
By: /s/ Brandon Baum
Brandon Baum
Agility IP Law
149 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 1033
Menlo Park, California 94025
Attorneys for Technology Properties Ltd.
and Alliacense Ltd.
Dated: August 28, 2012 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
__ Charles T. Hoge, Esq.
Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP
350 Tenth Avenue
Suite 1300
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Patriot Scientific Corp.


ATTESTATION PER GENERAL ORDER 45

I, Edward Runyan, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
Joint Case Management Conference Statement. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I
hereby attest that the counsel listed above have concurred with this filing.
Dated: August 28, 2012
By: : /s/ Edward Runyan
Attorney for Barco, N.V.