New Pacer--ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME;
CONTINUING CASE TUTORIAL TO JANUARY 26, 2011 (Signed by Judge)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Acer, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,
Defendants.

HTC Corp.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,
Defendants.

Barco NV,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,
Defendants.

NO. C 08-00877 JW
NO. C 08-00882 JW
NO. C 08-05398 JW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME;
CONTINUING CASE TUTORIAL TO JANUARY 26, 2011

2 (hereafter, “Scheduling Order,” Docket Item No. 297.)
3 (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Relief from First Patent Scheduling
Order at 1-3, Docket Item No. 303.)
4 (See Joint Case Management Conference Statement at 6, hereafter, “Statement,” Docket Item No. 294.)2
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time.1 Defendants request that the Court extend the dates set in the Court’s First Patent Scheduling Order2 by seventy-five days, on the ground that two of Defendants have “just retained” new counsel for these related cases. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs respond that an extension is unwarranted, on the ground that Defendants that have just retained new counsel appeared at a Case Management Conference on October 3, 2011, at which they
neither objected to the dates set forth at the Conference nor notified the Court or the parties that they were planning to substitute counsel.3 The Civil Local Rules provide: “After receiving a motion to enlarge or shorten time and any opposition, the Judge may grant, deny, modify the requested time change or schedule the matter for additional briefing or a hearing.” See Civ. L.R. 6-3(d). Upon review, the Court does not find good cause to extend the dates set in its First Patent Scheduling Order. On September 1, 2011, this matter was reassigned from Judge Fogel to Chief Judge Ware. (See Docket Item No. 291.) At the time this matter was reassigned, a claim construction tutorial and hearing had already been scheduled for November 2011.4 Indeed, when this matter was reassigned to Judge Ware, it was on the understanding that the matter had to dealt with on an expedited schedule, given the fact that the parties had a claim construction tutorial and hearing scheduled for November 2011. Further, after reassignment, Defendants contended that the claim construction tutorial and hearing should be held “in the second week of January or at the Court’s earliest availability thereafter.” (Statement at 6.) On the basis of the parties’ contentions regarding the claim construction tutorial and hearing, the Court scheduled the Case Tutorial for January 20, 2012 and the Claim Construction Hearing for January 27, 2012. (Scheduling Order at 4.) Thus, given: (1) the age of these cases; (2) the fact that claim construction proceedings were previously scheduled for November 2011; and (3) the contentions of the parties in their Joint Case Management Conference Statement and at the October 3 Conference, the Court finds that an extension of the dates set in the First Patent Scheduling Order is unwarranted. New counsel assumes the case as it is, and should be prepared to proceed in accordance with the Court’s First Patent Scheduling Order. Further, upon review of its own docket and calendar, and in light of the parties’ contentions regarding their availability at the October 3 Conference, the Court CONTINUES the Case Tutorial from January 20, 2012 to January 26, 2012. No other aspect of the Court’s Scheduling Order is
altered by this Order.
Dated: November 22, 2011
(Signed by Judge)
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge