`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES
`
`Time: 34 minutes
`3:12 p.m. to 3:46 p.m.
`Case Name: Huawei Technologies, Co, Ltd v. Samsung
`Electronics Co, Ltd.
`
`Date: April 19, 2017
`
`Judge: WILLIAM H. ORRICK
`
`Case No.: 16-cv-02787-WHO
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Irene I. Yang, Mike Bettinger, and Nathan A. Greenblatt
`Attorneys for Defendants: Kevin P.B. Johnson, Charles K. Verhoeven, and Iman Lordgooei
`
`
`
`Deputy Clerk: Jean Davis
`
`
`
`Court Reporter: JoAnn Bryce
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`Counsel appear for hearing as to motion by Samsung to amend its infringement contentions. The
`Court is inclined to grant the motion as defendant has been at least marginally diligent in
`identifying relevant prior art and amendment will not prejudice plaintiff. Parties discuss the
`issue of a relevant document which has been withheld by defense from discovery on the basis of
`privilege. It is clear to the Court that for plaintiff to effectively defend against the alleged
`conception date, this document will need to be disclosed at some point in the reasonably near
`future.
`
`Case management issues addressed. The Court is concerned by the scope of the litigation and is
`interested in possible strategies to allow for a manageable scope of inquiry in approximately a
`two-week trial. Counsel heard on preferred litigation management strategies. The Court directs
`that counsel confer further in an attempt to reach agreements which will limit the scope of trial.
`In two weeks counsel should submit a joint proposal or competing proposals for the Court's
`consideration.
`
`Defense requests continuance of claim construction hearing (and possibly the tutorial as well).
`Counsel should confer and submit a stipulation and order for continuance.
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
