Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

AG v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

January 18, 2018

DAIMLER AG, Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant.

          Grant E. Kinsel Lane M. Polozola PERKINS COIE LLP Attorneys for Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.

          Larry E. Altenbrun, Shauna M. Wertheim Nicoll Black & Feig PLLC Timothy W. Johnson, Joanna L. Cohn, THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Daimler AG

          STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pursuant to LCR 10(g), Plaintiff Daimler AG (“Daimler”) and Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) respectfully stipulate and jointly move the Court to amend the Order Setting Trial Date and Related Deadlines (Dkt. No. 32) (“Scheduling Order”) by striking the Markman-related deadlines in this case, as noted below.

         The parties respectfully submit that good cause exists for the proposed amendments to the schedule. In this case, Daimler asserts trademark-related and design-patent claims, but does not assert any utility patent claims. This District's Local Patent Rules accordingly do not apply as a general matter. See Local Patent Rule 101 (patent rules apply to civil actions which involve utility patents). The parties, after conferring, agree that given the scope of the case and fact that with respect to the patent claims only design patents are at issue, formal infringement and invalidity contentions and accompanying Markman deadlines are unnecessary.

         To reduce the burden on the Court and the parties, Daimler and Amazon accordingly request that the Court amend the case schedule by striking the deadlines for infringement and invalidity contentions, Markman-expert reports, claim construction exchanges and briefing, and the Markman hearing. The parties agree that they will set out their respective positions on infringement and invalidity in discovery responses in accordance with the case schedule. No other dates in the Scheduling Order would be modified and the parties' request would not result in an extension of the overall case schedule or trial date.

         A proposed amended case schedule is set forth below.

JURY TRIAL DATE

January 15, 2019

Reports from expert witnesses under FRCP 26(a)(2) due

7/20/2018

Rebuttal expert reports due

8/20/2018

All motions related to discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to CR7(d)(d)(3) or CR37(a)(2)(B)

8/17/2018

Discovery completed by

9/17/2018

All dispositive motions must be filed by and noted on the motion calendar no later than the fourth Friday thereafter (see CR7(d))

10/15/2018

Settlement conference per CR 39.1(c)(2) held no later than

12/10/2018

Mediation per CR 39.1(c)(3) held no later than

12/18/2018

All motions in limine must be filed by and noted on the motion calendar for the third Friday thereafter pursuant to CR7(d)

12/18/2018

Agreed pretrial order due

1/3/2019

Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions and jury instructions

1/10/2019

Pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court.

         ORDER

         For good cause ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.