decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Update on the NetApp-Sun Patent Litigation
Wednesday, June 04 2008 @ 04:48 AM EDT

You may have read in News Picks recently that Sun won a partial stay in the NetApp patent lawsuit over ZFS, according to IP Law 360:
A judge has partly stayed software company Network Appliance Inc.'s patent lawsuit against rival Sun Microsystems Inc. over Sun's ZFS technology, pending the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's re-examination of one of the patents in the suit.

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said Friday that proceedings related to U.S. Patent Number 6,857,001 will be stayed while the USPTO re-examines it at Sun's request.

I thought you'd like to see the Order [PDF], which tells us in detail what happened since we first heard about this case in the fall of 2007. And while I was at it, I got the docket to show you how things are going, along with some selected documents that looked interesting to me.

The Order tells us that Sun was able to persuade the USPTO to agree to reexaminations on some of NetApp's asserted patents, three of them (there are four more), but this one, Order Granting Request for Inter Party Reexamination [PDF] on the '001 patent, is the biggie. Sun asked for inter partes reexamination of the '001 patent, based on prior art, and the USPTO issued the order granting reexamination of all 63 claims of the patent, finding that a "substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) affecting claims 1-63" of the '001 patent exists. The two other orders from USPTO regarding the two other NetApp patents mentioned in the Sun motion are here. The difference between them is that in the case of the '001 patent, not only did the USPTO grant reexamination, it issued a first office action rejecting all 63 claims. You can find that info in Sun's Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Stay of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211, the full name of its motion, on page 6.

On that basis, Sun filed a motion [PDF] asking for a partial stay with respect to the claims and defenses regarding all three patents, but the US District Court Judge narrowed it and decided that it made sense to grant a partial stay with respect to one of them, '001:

Considering all of the above factors, on balance, the Court finds that a stay is warranted as to the '001 patent only. For patents '211 and '292, where there has been no indication from the PTO that these claims will be rejected, and in light of the facts that this case will move forward in any event and NetApp would face some tactical disadvantage if these claims were stayed, claim construction and discovery shall go forward. However, the Court recognizes that future actions by the PTO could alter this calculus. NetApp may conduct discovery and seek claim construction for these two patents, but the Court might later decide not to allow trial or dispositive motion practice on certain claims or to postpone trial and dispositive motions on them.

The parties shall provide a joint statement to the Court following the close of fact discovery updating the Court as to the status of the reexaminations. In addition, either party may move for relief from stay ('001 patent) or for a stay ('211 and '292 patents) if there is a significant change in the reexamination status at any time in the litigation.

So discovery goes forward, and with four other NetApp patents involved the case and twelve of Sun's, the case goes forward anyway, but if there is further action from the USPTO on the two other patents where reexamination has been granted, then there could be stays ordered for them also. Do you remember the '001 patent? You should, because you guys did some serious patent prior art searching on it and on the other patents in NetApp's complaint.

Background

Let's review what we knew about the case already, particularly for anyone new, so they can follow along and so the rest of us can recall the details. NetApp started the fight, filing its Complaint [PDF] against Sun in Texas, for patent infringement. Sun then filed an Answer with Counterclaims [PDF], and then it sued NetApp in California for patent infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under California's Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, announcing it would donate a portion of what it wins, if it does, to the open source community. After that, NetApp agreed to move its case [PDF] from Texas to California, which was commendable, frankly. So now there are two cases in California, running parallel, being heard by the same judge, which makes good sense.

Sun's Litigation Against NetApp

Here are some filings in the Sun v. NetApp litigation, if you are curious, all PDFs:

NetApp v. Sun

So that's Sun's action. But the partial stay was in the NetApp-initiated case, the one that began in Texas. That is the one that drew our attention. The docket I have to show you is for this litigation, and it picks up after the transfer to California.

NetApp opposed [PDF] Sun's motion asking for a partial stay, and in Dave Hitz's Redacted Declaration [PDF], he explains one reason why, under the header "Irreparable Harm to NetApp Through Sun's Open Sourcing of ZFS":

8. Sun has open-sourced ZFS and thereby given away for free NetApp's patented technology to anyone that wants to download a copy. That means Sun has created infringing computer code and made it easy for software users and software companies everywhere to infringe, instead of having users compensate NetApp for its technology through normal product purchases. This is not much different from the problems caused when an entity builds a business by distributing for free infringing copies of music. In both cases, there are practical problems in any attempt to recover the infringing copies of music. In both cases, there are practical problems in any attempt to recover the infringing copies or to enforce rights against everyone that has downloaded copies of the infringing software. One difference is that adoption of ZFS requires time because it is a software program and not just a song. The next two or three years are very significant for the proliferation of ZFS and it is vital to shut down Sun's distribution promptly.

Sun filed Objections [PDF] to statements in that Declaration, including to that paragraph 8, and also filed a Reply [PDF], asking if NetApp believes ZFS urgently needs to be "purged from the world" to avoid NetApp's doom, then why did NetApp wait so long to do anything about it? Sun announced ZFS publicly in November 2004 and released it a year later. So NetApp waited three years from that announcement and two from its release before suing over it in September of 2007. And even now, it isn't seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the alleged irreparable harm it claims, and the case has been going on now for many months. Discovery, it tells the court, hasn't been diligently pursued, so is time of the essence?

Not only that, but NetApp failed to tell the court about its own website, where, Sun writes, NetApp features a June 2007 NetApp-authored user guide, "ZFS Best Practices with NetApp", that "promotes and explains the use of Sun's ZFS software with NetApp products" and praises ZFS, with links to Sun's website for more info on ZFS. More significantly, Sun continues, the document "puts the lie" to NetApp's contention that ZFS is a copy of NetApp's technology, because it says:

The Solaris TM ZFS file system is a new file system that fundamentally changes the way file systems are administered, with new features and benefits. ZFS has been designed to be robust, scalable, and simple to administer and combines volume manager and file system capabilities.

How, Sun asks, can NetApp praise open source benefits of Sun's ZFS and simultaneously tell the court it is causing irreparable harm?

On page 12 of the PDF, 9 of the document, Sun says NetApp is suing Sun over a blog entry, from October 24, 2007, action No. C-07-05488-EDL, claiming disparagement. That is referring to the other case, the one Sun started, and NetApp has counterclaims there. Its sixth counterclaim is for unfair competition under the Lanham Act, citing Jonathan Schwartz's blog entry of that date. In short, this has become a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Here's part of what the USPTO said about the '001 patent:

ORDER GRANTING REEXAMINATION REQUEST

A substantial new question of patentability ("SNQ") affecting claims 1-63 of U. S. Patent No. 6,857,001 ("the '001 patent") is raised by the inter partes reexamination request filed 2/8/2008 ("Request"). A first action on the merits accompanies this Order....

SNQ Standard

For a SNQ to be present, it is only necessary that (A) the prior art patents and or printed publications raise a substantial question of patentability as to the claims, i.e., the teaching of the prior art patents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in deciding whether the claim is patentable; it is not necessary for the prior art to raise a prima facie case of unpatentability; and (B) the same question of patentability has not been decided by the Office in a previous examination of the patent or in a final holding of invalidity or unenforceability by a federal court.

This is the standard for an SNQ, a substantial new question. I wanted to show that to you, because we're all trying to learn as much as we can about patents, so we can be useful. What I see from the latest news on this litigation is this: prior art searching can be very valuable. Here's the paragraph that cemented it in my mind, from the Order, page 2:

The PTO granted inter partes reexamination as to all sixty-three claims of the '001 patent (on April 7, 2008) and issued a first office action rejecting all sixty-three claims of the '001 patent, based on twelve prior art references; granted inter partes reexamination as to all claims of the '211 patent, based on thirteen prior art references (on April 2, 2008); and granted ex parte reexamination as to claims one and four of the '292 patent (on March 18, 2008), based on six prior art references. Sun requested reexamination of these patents within four months of NetApp's filing of its complaint in this case. Sun has also recently filed another ex parte request for reexamination of claims four, eight, eleven through fifteen, and twenty of the '292 patent, after allegedly becoming aware of an additional prior art not disclosed to the PTO. Sun initially requested reexamination for the '292 patent as to claims one through four and eight through twenty, but the PTO only granted reexamination as to claims one and four, which are two of the three independent claims of that patent.

As you see, you not only have to provide prior art, you have to provide prior art for each and every claim in the patent. Should you think of still more prior art, by the way, and I'm guessing more would always be welcomed, just list it in a comment and here are instructions on how to submit it to Sun, if you wish. The above paragraph from the Order provides a rather clear map of what is still needed if it can be found.

If anyone can OCR the Order granting the partial stay, I'll gladly put it here. And if you see other documents on the list that you'd like to read, sing out. Your contributions make it possible for articles like this to happen, so if I've left out something you would like to have, just let me know. I think I have the important ones, however. Here's the docket:

******************************************

History

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
--
Filed: 11/30/2007
Entered: 12/05/2007
Case Referred to ECF
Docket Text: CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007)
1
Filed: 11/30/2007
Entered: 12/04/2007
Case Transferred In - District Transfer
Docket Text: Case transferred in from Eastern District of Texas; Case Number 9:07cv206. Original file with e-documents, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. Filed by Network Appliance Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Docket Sheet, # (2) Complaint, # (3) Civil Cover Sheet, # (4) Exhibit A, # (5) Exhibit B, # (6) Exhibit C, Part 1, # (7) Exhibit C, Part 2, # (8) Exhibit C, Par 3, # (9) Exhibit D, # (10) Exhibit E, # (11) Exhibit F, # (12) Exhibit G, # (13) Exhibit H, # (14) Exhibit I, # (15) Exhibit J, # (16) Exhibit K, # (17) Exhibit L, # (18) Exhibit M, # (19) Corporate Disclosure Statement, # (20) Report, # (21) Answer & Counterclaim, # (22) Exhibit A, # (23) Exhibit B, # (24) Exhibit C, # (25) Exhibit D, # (26) Exhibit E, # (27) Exhibit F, # (28) Exhibit G, # (29) Exhibit H, # (30) Exhibit I, # (31) Exhibit J, # (32) Exhibit K, # (33) Exhibit L, # (34) Corporate Disclosure, # (35) Protective Order, # (36) Stipulation to Transfer)(rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007)
2
Filed: 11/30/2007
Entered: 12/04/2007
ADR Scheduling Order
Docket Text: ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 3/11/2008 at 10:00 AM. Case Management Statement due by 3/4/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Standing Order, # (2) Standing Order)(rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007)
3
Filed & Entered: 12/04/2007
Terminated: 12/11/2007
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: MOTION Requesting Prompt CMC filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Reines, Edward) (Filed on 12/4/2007)
4
Filed & Entered: 12/04/2007
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Edward Reines in Support of [3] MOTION Requesting Prompt CMC filed byNetwork Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit, # (2) Exhibit, # (3) Exhibit)(Related document(s)[3]) (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 12/4/2007)
5
Filed & Entered: 12/07/2007
Memorandum in Opposition
Docket Text: Memorandum in Opposition re [3] MOTION Requesting Prompt CMC filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Fowler, Mark) (Filed on 12/7/2007)
6
Filed & Entered: 12/07/2007
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Mark Fowler in Support of [5] Memorandum in Opposition to Network Appliance's Motion for Administrative Relief filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C)(Related document(s)[5]) (Fowler, Mark) (Filed on 12/7/2007)
7
Filed & Entered: 12/07/2007
Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [3] MOTION Requesting Prompt CMC filed byNetwork Appliance Inc.. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 12/7/2007)
8
Filed & Entered: 12/07/2007
Answer to to CounterClaim
Docket Text: ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM, COUNTERCLAIM against Sun Microsystems Inc byNetwork Appliance Inc.. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 12/7/2007)
9
Filed & Entered: 12/11/2007
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTING A PROMPT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granting [3] Motion (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2007)
--
Filed: 01/08/2008
Entered: 01/10/2008
Received Order
Docket Text: RECEIVED ORDER: [Proposed] Order Granting re [10] Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice Submitted by Defendant Network Appliance Inc.. (tn, COURT STAFF)
10
Filed: 01/08/2008
Entered: 01/10/2008
Terminated: 01/10/2008
Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION of Attorney Elizabeth S. Weiswasser for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice - [Filing Fee: $210.00, Receipt Number 34611014423] Filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2008)
11
Filed: 01/10/2008
Entered: 01/17/2008
Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER GRANTING Application of Elizabeth S. Weiswasser for admission of attorney Pro Hac Vice [10]. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2008)
12
Filed & Entered: 01/22/2008
Joint Case Management Statement
Docket Text: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 1/22/2008)
13
Filed & Entered: 01/28/2008
Stipulation
Docket Text: STIPULATION and Proposed Order Regarding the Production of Electronic and Other Information in Response to Document Requests by Network Appliance Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. (Homrig, Jeffrey) (Filed on 1/28/2008)
14
Filed & Entered: 01/28/2008
Joint Case Management Statement
Docket Text: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement Re: Entry of a Protective Order filed by Network Appliance Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Proposed Protective Order)(Homrig, Jeffrey) (Filed on 1/28/2008)
16
Filed: 01/30/2008
Entered: 02/01/2008
Case Management Conference - Initial
Docket Text: Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 1/28/2008 before Elizabeth D. Laporte. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/3/2008 02:00 AM. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/30/2008)
15
Filed & Entered: 01/31/2008
Stipulation and Order
Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING the Production of Electronic and Other Information in Reponse to Document Requests re [13]. Signed by Judge Elizbeth D. Laporte on 1/28/08. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2008)
--
Filed: 02/01/2008
Entered: 02/04/2008
Received Order
Docket Text: RECEIVED ORDER: [Proposed] Order Granting re [18] Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice Submitted by Defendant Sun Microsystems Inc. (tn, COURT STAFF)
17
Filed & Entered: 02/01/2008
Letter
Docket Text: Letter from Edward R. Reines and Mark Fowler Re: Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 2/1/2008)
18
Filed: 02/01/2008
Entered: 02/04/2008
Terminated: 02/05/2008
Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION of Attorney Clayton W. Thompson for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice - [Filing Fee: $210.00, Receipt Number 34611015336] Filed by Defendant Sun Microsystems Inc.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2008)
19
Filed: 02/05/2008
Entered: 02/08/2008
Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER GRANTING Application for Admission of Attorney Clayton W. Thompson Pro Hac Vice [18]. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2008)
20
Filed & Entered: 02/12/2008
Case Management Scheduling Order
Docket Text: CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for Settlement. Updated Joint Case Management Statement due 5/27/2008. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/3/2008 02:00 PM. Tutorial scheduled for 8/4/2008 09:00 AM. Claims Construction Hearing set for 8/27/2008 02:00 PM. All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than 10/13/2008. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 2/12/08. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2008)
21
Filed & Entered: 02/14/2008
Clerk's Notice
Docket Text: CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE for 2/25/2008, at 3:30 p.m. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2008)
22
Filed & Entered: 02/19/2008
Notice of Change In Counsel
Docket Text: NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Christine Kerba Corbett (Withdrawal) (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 2/19/2008)
23
Filed & Entered: 02/19/2008
Proposed Order
Docket Text: Proposed Order First Amended Protective Order by Network Appliance Inc.. (Homrig, Jeffrey) (Filed on 2/19/2008)
24
Filed & Entered: 02/20/2008
Protective Order
Docket Text: PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on February 20, 2008. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2008)
25
Filed & Entered: 02/29/2008
Telephone Conference
Docket Text: Minute Entry: A Telephonic Scheduling Conference was held on 2/25/2008 to determine a date for a settlement conference in this matter. A settlement conference will take place on 6/24/2008, at 9:30 a.m. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/29/2008)
26
Filed & Entered: 03/03/2008
Order
Docket Text: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER. A Settlement Conference is set for 6/24/2008, at 9:30 a.m. [Please refer to the Order for additional deadlines and requirements.] Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 3/3/2008. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2008)
27
Filed & Entered: 03/14/2008
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Network Appliance Inc. NetApp's Identification of ADR Participants (Homrig, Jeffrey) (Filed on 3/14/2008)
28
Filed & Entered: 03/14/2008
Letter
Docket Text: Letter from Mark Fowler to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Identifying Sun Microsystems Individual with Complete and Unlimited Settlement Authority. (Fowler, Mark) (Filed on 3/14/2008)
29
Filed: 03/18/2008
Entered: 03/19/2008
Terminated: 03/19/2008
Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION of Attorney Danielle Rosenthal for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice -[Filing Fee: $210.00, Receipt Number 34611017138] Filed by Plaintiff Network Appliance Inc.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2008)
30
Filed: 03/18/2008
Entered: 03/19/2008
Proposed Order
Docket Text: [Proposed] Order Granting re [29] Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Danielle Rosenthal Submitted by Plaintiff Network Appliance Inc.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2008)
31
Filed & Entered: 03/19/2008
Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granting [29] Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Danielle Rosenthal (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2008)
32
Filed & Entered: 03/31/2008
Terminated: 04/01/2008
MOTION to Relate Case
Docket Text: MOTION to Relate Case (Administrative), Pursuant to L.R. 3-12 filed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 3/31/2008)
33
Filed & Entered: 03/31/2008
Proposed Order
Docket Text: Proposed Order Re Related Case by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 3/31/2008)
34
Filed & Entered: 04/01/2008
Order on Motion to Relate Case
Docket Text: ORDER GRANTING Administrative Motion to Relate Case [32]. Case C07-6053 EDL is related to C07-5488 EDL and C08-1641 EMC. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2008)
35
Filed & Entered: 04/15/2008
Terminated: 04/21/2008
Ex Parte Application
Docket Text: Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Sun's Motion for Partial Stay of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 filed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 4/15/2008)
36
Filed & Entered: 04/15/2008
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Christine K. Corbett in Support of [35] Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Sun's Motion for Partial Stay of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D)(Related document(s)[35]) (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 4/15/2008)
37
Filed & Entered: 04/15/2008
Proposed Order
Docket Text: Proposed Order Granting Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Sun's Motion for Partial Stay of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 4/15/2008)
38
Filed & Entered: 04/15/2008
Terminated: 05/23/2008
Motion to Stay
Docket Text: MOTION to Stay (Partial) of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 filed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 4/15/2008)
39
Filed & Entered: 04/15/2008
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Christine K. Corbett in Support of [38] MOTION to Stay (Partial) of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E)(Related document(s)[38]) (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 4/15/2008)
40
Filed & Entered: 04/15/2008
Proposed Order
Docket Text: Proposed Order Granting re [38] Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Stay of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 4/15/2008)
41
Filed & Entered: 04/18/2008
Memorandum in Opposition
Docket Text: Memorandum in Opposition to re [35] Sun's Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Sun's Stay Motion Filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Nathan, Aaron) (Filed on 4/18/2008)
42
Filed & Entered: 04/19/2008
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Aaron M. Nathan ISO re [41] Net App, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Sun's Stay Motion filed byNetwork Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit Exhibit C (part 1), # (4) Exhibit Exhibit C (part 2), # (5) Exhibit Exhibit D, # (6) Exhibit Exhibit E (part 1), # (7) Exhibit Exhibit E (part 2), # (8) Exhibit Exhibit F, # (9) Exhibit Exhibit G (part 1), # (10) Exhibit Exhibit G (part 2), # (11) Exhibit Exhibit H (part 1), # (12) Exhibit Exhibit H (part 2), # (13) Exhibit Exhibit I, # (14) Exhibit Exhibit J, # (15) Exhibit Exhibit K (part 1), # (16) Exhibit Exhibit K (part 2))(Nathan, Aaron) (Filed on 4/19/2008)
43
Filed & Entered: 04/21/2008
Order on Ex Parte Application
Docket Text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granting in part and denying in part [35] Ex Parte Application (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2008)
44
Filed & Entered: 04/23/2008
Letter
Docket Text: Letter from Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Network Appliance, Inc. to Magistrate Judge Spero regarding settlement proposal schedule. (Williamson, Carrie) (Filed on 4/23/2008)
45
Filed & Entered: 04/24/2008
Proposed Order
Docket Text: Proposed Order and Stipulation Regarding Extension to Exchange Settlement Proposals by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Williamson, Carrie) (Filed on 4/24/2008)
46
Filed & Entered: 04/28/2008
Order
Docket Text: ORDER granting (45 in 3:07-cv-06053-EDL) Proposed Order and Stipulation filed by Sun Microsystems Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 4/28/2008. (jcssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2008)
--
Filed: 04/29/2008
Entered: 04/30/2008
Received Document
Docket Text: RECEIVED "SEALED" DOCUMENT: Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partially Stay Submitted by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Network Appliance Inc..(tn, COURT STAFF)
--
Filed: 04/29/2008
Entered: 04/30/2008
Received Document
Docket Text: RECEIVED "SEALED" DOCUMENT: Declaration of David Hitz in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partially Stay Submitted by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Network Appliance Inc.. (tn, COURT STAFF)
47
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Declaration in Opposition
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Stephen G. Kunin In Support Of re [49] NetApp, Inc.'s Opposition To Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Motion For Partial Stay filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E, # (6) Exhibit F, # (7) Exhibit G, # (8) Exhibit H, # (9) Exhibit I, # (10) Exhibit J, # (11) Exhibit K, # (12) Exhibit L, # (13) Exhibit M, # (14) Exhibit N, # (15) Exhibit O, # (16) Exhibit P)(Reines, Edward) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
48
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Declaration in Opposition
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Jill J. Ho In Support of re [49] NetApp, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Motion For Partial Stay filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
49
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Memorandum in Opposition
Docket Text: Memorandum in Opposition to re [38] Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Motion For Partial Stay filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
50
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Terminated: 05/23/2008
Motion to Seal Document
Docket Text: MOTION to Seal Document filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order Granting NetApp's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Nathan, Aaron) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
51
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Aaron M. Nathan in Support of [50] MOTION to Seal Document filed byNetwork Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Related document(s)[50]) (Nathan, Aaron) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
52
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Network Appliance Inc. re [49] Memorandum in Opposition to Sun's Motion for Partial Stay and Motion to Seal [50] and Supporting Declaration [51] (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
53
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Memorandum in Opposition
Docket Text: Memorandum in Opposition re [50] MOTION to Seal Document filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Williamson, Carrie) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
54
Filed & Entered: 04/29/2008
Proposed Order
Docket Text: Proposed Order Denying NetApp's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Williamson, Carrie) (Filed on 4/29/2008)
--
Filed: 05/05/2008
Entered: 05/06/2008
Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
Docket Text: Set/Reset Deadlines as to Defendant's Motion to Stay [38]. Motion Hearing reset for 5/13/2008 09:00 AM. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
--
Filed: 05/05/2008
Entered: 05/07/2008
Received Document
Docket Text: RECEIVED "SEALED" DOCUMENT: Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Stay of the Case Pending Reexaminationof United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 & 6,892,211 re [55] Submitted by Defendant/Counterclaimant Sun Microsystems Inc..(tn, COURT STAFF)
--
Filed: 05/05/2008
Entered: 05/07/2008
Received Document
Docket Text: RECEIVED "SEALED" DOCUMENT: Objections to Declarations of David Hitz & Stephen G. Kunin in Support of Network Appliance, Inc.'s Opposition to Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Stay re [55] Submitted by Defendant/Counterclaiman Sun Microsystems Inc.. (tn, COURT STAFF)
55
Filed & Entered: 05/05/2008
Terminated: 05/23/2008
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: MOTION Administrative Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5 Regarding Sun's Reply in Support of its Motion for Partial Stay filed by Sun Microsystems Inc. Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2008 02:00 PM. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
56
Filed & Entered: 05/05/2008
Reply to Opposition
Docket Text: Reply to Opposition re [38] MOTION to Stay (Partial) of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
57
Filed & Entered: 05/05/2008
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Mark D. Fowler in Support of [56] Reply to Opposition filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Related document(s)[56]) (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
58
Filed & Entered: 05/05/2008
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Graham Lovell in Support of [56] Reply to Opposition filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Related document(s)[56]) (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
59
Filed & Entered: 05/05/2008
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Christine K. Corbett in Support of [56] Reply to Opposition filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B)(Related document(s)[56]) (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
60
Filed & Entered: 05/05/2008
Objection
Docket Text: OBJECTIONS to Declarations of David Hitz and Stephen G. Kunin in Support of Network Appliance, Inc.'s Opposition to Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Stay by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
61
Filed: 05/05/2008
Entered: 05/06/2008
Clerk's Notice
Docket Text: CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay [38] to 9:00 AM on 5/13/2008. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2008)
62
Filed & Entered: 05/09/2008
Response in Support
Docket Text: RESPONSE in Support re [60] Objections to Declarations of David Hitz and Stephen G. Kunin filed byNetwork Appliance Inc.. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 5/9/2008)
63
Filed & Entered: 05/13/2008
Stipulation
Docket Text: CHART Regarding Re-examination Status of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Williamson, Carrie) (Filed on 5/13/2008)
64
Filed: 05/13/2008
Entered: 05/14/2008
Motion Hearing
Docket Text: Minute Entry: Hearing held on 5/13/2008 before Elizabeth D. Laporte Defendant's Motion to Stay (Partial) of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211. (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/13/2008)
65
Filed & Entered: 05/16/2008
Transcript
Docket Text: Transcript of Proceedings held on 05/13/08, before Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia R. Zinn, Telephone number (415) 531-6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/11/2008. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 5/16/2008)
66
Filed & Entered: 05/16/2008
Letter
Docket Text: Letter from Edward R. Reines To Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte. (Reines, Edward) (Filed on 5/16/2008)
67
Filed & Entered: 05/19/2008
Letter
Docket Text: Letter from Mark D. Fowler. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/19/2008)
68
Filed & Entered: 05/23/2008
Order on Motion to Stay
Docket Text: ORDER by Judge Laporte granting in part and denying in part [38] Motion to Stay; granting in part and denying in part [50] [55] Motions to Seal Document ; overruling evidentiary objections [60] (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2008)
69
Filed & Entered: 05/23/2008
Memorandum in Opposition
Docket Text: Memorandum in Opposition redacted as per [68] Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Motion to Seal filed byNetwork Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Redacted Declaration of David Hitz)(Reines, Edward) (Filed on 5/23/2008)
70
Filed & Entered: 05/24/2008
Claim Construction Statement
Docket Text: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (Joint) filed by Network Appliance Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E, # (6) Exhibit F, # (7) Exhibit G, # (8) Exhibit H, # (9) Exhibit I, # (10) Exhibit J, # (11) Exhibit K, # (12) Exhibit L, # (13) Exhibit M, # (14) Exhibit N, # (15) Exhibit O, # (16) Exhibit P, # (17) Exhibit Q, # (18) Exhibit R, # (19) Exhibit S)(Homrig, Jeffrey) (Filed on 5/24/2008)
71
Filed & Entered: 05/27/2008
Reply Memorandum
Docket Text: Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Stay of the Case Pending Reexamination of United States Patent Nos. 5,819,292, 6,857,001 and 6,892,211 filed bySun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/27/2008)
72
Filed & Entered: 05/27/2008
Objection
Docket Text: OBJECTIONS to Declarations of David Hitz and Stephen G. Kunin in Support of Network Appliance, Inc.'s Opposition to Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Stay by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Corbett, Christine) (Filed on 5/27/2008)

  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )