New pacers--DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
AND EXPEDITED MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM FIRST PATENT
SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER CIVIL
LOCAL RULE 6-3; MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
AND EXPEDITED MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM FIRST PATENT
SCHEDULING ORDER UNDER CIVIL
LOCAL RULE 6-3; MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT
Judge: Hon. James Ware
HTC CORPORATION and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

Notice of Motion

Please take notice that pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, Defendants Technology
Properties Limited (“TPL”), Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”) and Patriot Scientific Corporation
(“Patriot”) hereby move, on an expedited basis, for relief from the Court’s First Patent
Scheduling Order (Docket No. 297), on the grounds that TPL and Alliacense have just retained
Agility IP Law, LLP (“Agility”) as new counsel for these three related cases. Because Agility
needs time to come up to speed in advance of the impending Markman deadlines, and because a
modest delay of the deadlines will not prejudice Plaintiffs, Defendants respectfully ask the Court
to grant a continuance of the dates in the First Patent Scheduling Order by 75 days.
Also pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, Defendants respectfully ask the Court to hear this
Motion on an expedited basis, with Plaintiffs’ oppositions due by no later than 12:00 p.m. Pacific
Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011. The expedited consideration of Defendants’ Motion is
necessitated by the fact that the parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement is
currently due on Friday, November 18, 2011 under the First Patent Scheduling Order.
This Motion is based on this Notice and Memorandum in Support, the accompanying
Declaration of James C. Otteson in Support of Expedited Relief from First Patent Scheduling
Order, the Proposed Order, and the pleadings and other materials on file in this case.
Memorandum in Support
Defendants TPL and Alliacense have just retained new litigation counsel for these three
related cases: James C. Otteson and Michelle Breit of Agility IP Law, LLP (“Agility”). Agility is
replacing Farella Braun & Martel (“Farella”), former litigation counsel for Defendants.1 Due to
the complexity of the issues in these cases, Agility respectfully seeks a continuance of 75 days.
Since being retained mid last week, Agility has been working diligently to learn the issues
in these complicated patent cases. As the Court is aware, these cases involve the assertion of four
1 Last week, Defendants filed a proposed stipulated order for Agility to substitute
into these cases as counsel for TPL and Alliacense – in place of Farella. Although the Court has
not yet entered the stipulated order to approve the substitution of Agility for Farella, Special
Master Denver informed Agility earlier today that Agility should go ahead and file this motion.
patents that cover technology relating to microprocessors and electronic systems: U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,440,749, 5,530,890, 6,598,148 and 5,809,336. There are literally dozens of accused
products and over 10 million pages of produced documents in these cases. Because the Agility
attorneys entered notices of appearance today – and just signed onto the respective protective
orders in these cases – they have not yet started to become familiar with the millions of
confidential technical documents that form the bases for Defendants’ infringement allegations.
Moreover, these cases are on the threshold of the final claim construction procedures that
will quickly culminate in a Markman hearing on January 27, 2012. Although Plaintiffs’ counsel
have had the benefit of many months (or even years) of experience with the asserted patents,
Agility is furiously trying to learn and understand the parties’ disputes over nearly three dozen
claim terms, including the “Top Ten” that will be argued at the claim construction hearing. While
the complex subject matter of the patents would present a steep learning curve for any lawyer over
the normal course of six to nine months contemplated under the Patent Local Rules, it is especially
daunting to master this material in just a few weeks.
Accordingly, TPL and Alliacense respectfully ask the Court to extend the dates in the First
Patent Scheduling Order by approximately 75 days.2 Although this short delay will still require
Agility to work hard to understand the claim construction and infringement issues, the task will be
doable – rather than next to impossible.
Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by such a modest continuance. The Plaintiffs in each of
the three related cases – Acer, HTC and Barco – filed their complaints in 2008. But they are
plaintiffs in name only: as declaratory judgment plaintiffs, they are actually the accused infringers
of the asserted patents. Thus, if anything, a short continuance postpones any potential adverse
judgment for plaintiffs; in the meantime, they continue to make, use, sell and import their accused
2 In the parties’ call with Special Master Denver on November 10, 2011, Agility
indicated that it would seek a continuance of 60 days. Plaintiffs indicated they would oppose
such a request. Having further considered the scope of tasks associated with learning these
cases, Agility respectfully seeks a continuance of 75 days.
products without any adverse consequence. Plaintiffs enjoyed a similar reprieve when the cases
were delayed during the PTO’s reexamination of two of the asserted patents.
Finally, the Court and Special Master are relatively new to these cases. Indeed, Special
Master Denver held his first teleconference with the parties on Thursday, November 10th – the
day after TPL and Alliacense retained Agility. Under the circumstances, Defendants respectfully
submit that everyone could benefit from a slight delay of the schedule.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully ask the Court to grant their expedited
request to continue the dates in the First Patent Scheduling Order (Docket No. 297) by
approximately 75 days, as outlined in the accompanying Proposed Order.
Dated: November 15, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
By: /s/ James C. Otteson
James C. Otteson
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE &HOGE
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
MICHELLE BREIT, State Bar No. 133143
AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
149 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED
CHARLES T. HOGE, State Bar No. 110696
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE &HOGE
35 Tenth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.





DECLARATION OF JAMES C.
OTTESON IN SUPPORT OF
EXPEDITED RELIEF FROM FIRST
PATENT SCHEDULING ORDER
DECLARATION OF JAMES C. OTTESON -ii- CASE NOS. 3:08-CV-00877, 3:08-CV-00882
AND 3:08-CV-05398 JW
HTC CORPORATION and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
I, James C. Otteson, declare:
1. I am the Founding Partner of Agility IP Law, LLP (“Agility”). I have personal
knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration, and could testify competently to those facts.
2. Defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”) and Alliacense Limited
(“Alliacense”) retained Agility and me to represent them in the above captioned cases on
November 9, 2011. Prior to that date, I had previously worked with TPL and Alliacense on other
patent cases, but none involving TPL’s “MMP Portfolio,” which includes U.S. Patent Nos.
5,440,749, 5,530,890, 6,598,148 and 5,809,336 – the patents at issue in the cases currently before
this Court. TPL and Alliacense have asked Agility to replace Farella Braun & Martel (“Farella”)
as litigation counsel on these cases.
3. At 8:30 a.m. the following morning, I attended a teleconference with Special
Master Thomas Denver with counsel for all of the other parties. During that teleconference, Mr.
Denver asked whether I would seek a continuance of the schedule to allow Agility more time to
come up to speed on the issues in these cases. I indicated that Agility would seek a continuance
of approximately 60 days. Counsel for each of the Plaintiffs stated that they would oppose such
a request. However, Mr. Walker (on behalf of Acer) indicated that he might not oppose a shorter
delay; he did express his view that 60 days was too long. Mr. Hoge, counsel for Defendant
Patriot Scientific Corporation indicated that he would support my request for a continuance.
4. Since last week, we have been working hard to come up to speed on the claim
construction and infringement issues relating to the four asserted patents. However, the subject
matter of these patents is very complicated, as they relate to semiconductor chips – specifically
microprocessors – as well as how those chips operate and interact in larger systems. It will
definitely take a great deal of time and hard work to master the technical subject matter of these
patents, as well as the infringement of Plaintiffs’ accused products.
5. As of today, although the Court had not yet entered a stipulated order of
substitution of counsel that Farella filed last week (and, thus, I was not yet technically counsel of
record), Mr. Denver’s office informed me that I should go ahead and file a motion for relief from
the Court’s First Patent Scheduling Order (Docket No. 297, filed October 5, 2011). Thus, this
evening I entered a notice of appearance in these three cases so that I could file a motion for
relief from the schedule. Today I also executed protective order acknowledgements in each of
the three cases. After that, I was informed by Farella that the parties had produced over 10
million pages of documents in this case, most of which were marked confidential under the
various protective orders.
6. If Agility does not receive additional time to learn the technical issues relating to
claim construction for the four asserted patents – not to mention the dozens of accused products
and millions of pages of produced documents – we will be severely prejudiced and suffer a major
tactical litigation disadvantage vis-à-vis Plaintiffs’ counsel. Under the circumstances, I think it
will still be difficult to come up to speed with 75 additional days (which we respectfully request).
However, it will at least be possible for us to start to understand the most critical issues in the
case relating to claim construction and infringement. By contrast, a delay of two or three months
will not prejudice Plaintiffs: as the accused infringers, they are merely getting a slightly longer
reprieve from an eventual adverse judgment of infringement. In the meantime, they are
obviously free to import and sell their potentially infringing products (to the detriment of
defendants TPL and Patriot, which own the patents).
I declare the foregoing under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America. Executed in Menlo Park, California this 15th day of November, 2011.
/s/ James C. Otteson
James C. Otteson
JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. 157781
MICHELLE BREIT, State Bar No. 133143
AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
149 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED
CHARLES T. HOGE, State Bar No. 110696
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE &HOGE
35 Tenth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

[PROPOSED] SECOND PATENT
SCHEDULING ORDER

HTC CORPORATION and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

Having considered the papers in support of the motion filed by Defendants Technology
Properties Limited, Alliacense Limited, and Patriot Scientific Corporation for relief from the
Court’s First Patent Scheduling Order (Docket No. 297), as well as the opposition papers
submitted by Plaintiffs Acer, HTC and Barco, the Court hereby grants Defendants’ motion and
enters this Second Patent Scheduling Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall adhere to the following Case Schedule:
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement February 1, 2012
Close of Claim Construction Discovery March 2, 2012
Case Tutorial April 6, 2012
Claim Construction Hearing April 13, 2012
Further Case Management Conference May 14, 2012
Dated: November __, 2011
(Not signed by Judge)
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge