Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 143 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES, CO, LTD, et
`al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD., et
`al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING CASE
`MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 131, 132, 133, 138
`
`At the last hearing, I directed the parties to meet and confer and propose “the most efficient
`
`way that we can try the case in two weeks[.]” Hr’g Tr. at 23:21–22 (Dkt. No. 129). The parties
`
`were unable to submit a joint proposal, but submitted competing proposals (Dkt. Nos. 131, 132),
`
`and Samsung followed up with a Supplemental Statement (Dkt. No. 138).1
`
`Huawei’s proposal reiterated its arguments in support of bifurcation, see Huawei’s Case
`
`Management Proposal at 2–7 (Dkt. No. 131), ignoring my direction to merely footnote its
`
`preference for bifurcation, see Hr’g Tr. at 24:11–14 (“[G]ive me your proposal on how you’re
`
`going to reduce claims and try the case without doing FRAND first. Just you can footnote that
`
`you think it’s a terrible idea, but give me otherwise your best idea.”). Then, once it moved past its
`
`bifurcation arguments, it indicated that it “generally agrees with a phased narrowing approach, and
`
`is prepared to work with Samsung to reach agreement on the precise schedule and terms
`
`narrowing patent issues.” Huawei’s Case Management Proposal at 7.
`
`No agreement has been reached, so I have considered the competing proposals. See Hr’g
`
`Tr. at 24:15 (“[E]ither you’ve agreed or I’ll try and sort it out… .”). I will follow the narrowing
`
`
`1 Huawei’s Motion for Leave to File the Bettinger Declaration (Dkt. No. 133) is GRANTED. The
`declaration and attached exhibits were considered as part of this Order.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 143 Filed 06/02/17 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`procedures implemented by the Hon. Lucy Koh in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et
`
`al.,, 5:12-cv-630-LHK, Dkt. 394, 471, rather than the E.D. Texas Model Order, because of the
`
`general similarities between Apple v Samsung and this case. I adopt the following schedule:
`
`
`Date
`10 days after claim
`construction order
`One week after fact
`discovery cutoff
`
`Two weeks after fact
`discovery cutoff
`One week after close of
`expert discovery
`
`Two weeks after close
`of expert discovery
`July 20, 2018
`(approximately one
`month prior to the final
`pre-trial conference)
`July 27, 2018
`(approximately three
`weeks prior to the final
`pre-trial conference)
`
`
`Narrowing Procedure
`The parties will narrow the patent claims to 22 claims per side and 22
`accused products per side.
`The parties will be required to dismiss without prejudice four to six
`patents (if not already dismissed), so that neither side will be asserting
`more than six patents. In addition, the parties will be required to limit
`their asserted claims to 15 per side, and limit their accused products to
`18 per side.
`The parties will be required to reduce their invalidity
`references/systems/combinations2 to 45 per side.
`The parties will be required to dismiss without prejudice one patent
`from the case (if not already dismissed) so that neither side will be
`asserting more than five patents. In addition, the parties will be required
`to limit their asserted claims to 10 per side and limit their accused
`products to 15 per side.
`The parties will be required to reduce their invalidity
`references/systems/combinations to 25 per side.
`The parties will be required to limit their asserted claims to five per
`side and limit their accused products to 10 per side.
`
`The parties will be required to reduce their invalidity
`references/systems/combinations to 15 per side.
`
`The discovery schedule will be set upon entry of the Claims Construction Order, and the pretrial
`
`schedule remains as follows.
`
`
`
`Date
`Event
`Dispositive Motions Heard By May 2, 2018
`Pretrial Conference
`August 20, 2018
`Trial
`September 17, 2018
`
`Huawei has indicated that “a two-week trial on all issues is not workable and would
`
`prejudice Huawei’s ability to fairly present evidence supporting its claims[,]” and insisted that “a
`
`
`2 Each 35 U.S.C. § 102 reference/system, or § 103 combination counts as a single “invalidity
`reference/system/combination.”
`
`2
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 143 Filed 06/02/17 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`combined trial to resolve all the claims and counterclaims in this case … would take at least four
`
`weeks.” Huawei’s Case Management Proposal at 5; see id. at 7 (“[A] single two-week trial on all
`
`issues is neither sensible nor realistic.”). Its contention is undermined by Huawei’s prior estimate
`
`that FRAND-related issues could be tried in five days and patent infringement issues in 12 days.
`
`9/6/16 Joint Case Management Statement at 25 (Dkt. No. 67).3 Given that these estimates were
`
`based on the full scope of the case prior to any narrowing of patent issues, it seems plausible that
`
`the parties could present both patent and FRAND-related issues in a two-week trial. However, the
`
`Court will review concerns about the length of the trial closer to trial.4
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: June 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William H. Orrick
`United States District Judge
`
`
`3 At this time, Samsung estimated 12 days to hear all issues. Id.
`
` 4
`
` Judge Koh also limited the number of experts, expert reports, Daubert motions, and testifying
`experts in Apple v Samsung. I am considering those limitations for this case. After the tutorial on
`August 7, 2017, I will solicit the parties’ views on whether I should impose them.
`3
`
`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
`
`