Free Status Report - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-02229-JLK-KLM

Document 66

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 00-cv-02229-JLK CAUGHT FISH ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and METAL ROOF INNOVATIONS, LTD., a Colorado corporation Plaintiffs, vs. CONTEK, INC., d/b/a SNOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, a Vermont corporation Defendant.

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Plaintiffs Caught Fish Enterprises, LLC and Metal Roof Innovations, Ltd. ("Caught Fish") and Defendant Contek, Inc. ("Contek") (collectively "the Parties") hereby respectfully submit a Joint Status Report as requested by the Court's July 31, 2007 Minute Order [Doc. #65]. I. RECENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 12, 2006, the Court held a Markman/Claim Construction Hearing to determine the meaning of the disputed terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,228,248 and 5,983,588. On July 18, 2006, the Court issued an Order [Doc. # 59] stating that it would generally adopt Caught Fish's proposed claim construction on disputed terms. The Court indicated at that time a formal Order would be issued forthwith. On June 18, 2007, the Court issued its formal Memorandum and

Case 1:00-cv-02229-JLK-KLM

Document 66

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 2 of 3

Opinion [Doc. # 62] construing the disputed terms. Currently a Status Conference is set for August 30, 2007 to determine how the Parties wish to proceed. II. THE PARTIES JOINT STATUS REPORT A. A Court-Ordered Settlement Conference May Resolve This Matter

Shortly after the issuance of the Court's June 18, 2007 Memorandum and Opinion construing disputed terms, the Parties, individually without the assistance of counsel, attempted settlement discussions. The Parties were not able to individually settle the case on mutually agreeable terms. The Parties, however, believe that a Court-ordered settlement conference held before a Magistrate Judge in which party representatives would be required to attended and submit confidential written settlement proposals would assist in the expedited resolution of this matter. As such, the Parties respectfully request the Court refer this case to a Magistrate Judge for the purpose of a settlement conference, require that party representatives attend, and submit confidential written settlement proposals in advance of the settlement conference. B. The Parties Seek A Scheduling Order To Complete Discovery As such, the Parties

Both Caught Fish and Contek desire to continue discovery.

respectfully request that the Court issue a Scheduling Order to outline dates for the completion of fact and expert discovery, the filing of dispositive motions and set a final pre-trial conference.

2

Case 1:00-cv-02229-JLK-KLM

Document 66

Filed 08/27/2007

Page 3 of 3

To facilitate this process, the Parties propose the following schedule: Action Deadline for Initial Supplemental Responses to Discovery 1 Factual Discovery Cut-off Designation of Expert Witnesses Rebuttal Witnesses Expert Discovery Cut-off Dispositive Motion Deadline Pretrial Conference Trial Deadline September 30, 2007 March 17, 2008 April 18, 2008 May 30, 2008 June 30, 2008 August 14, 2008 to be determined to be determined

Dated: August 27, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

s/Paul S. Cha Robert R. Brunelli [email protected] Paul S. Cha [email protected] SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80202-5141 (303) 863-9700 B Telephone (303) 863-0223 B Facsimile E-mail: [email protected]

By:

s/Timothy P. Getzoff Donald Degnan [email protected] Timothy P. Getzoff [email protected] Holland & Hart, LLP 1800 Broadway, Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80302-5144 (303) 473-2700 - Telephone (303) 473-2720 - Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CAUGHT FISH ENTERPRISES, LLC AND METAL ROOF INNOVATIONS, LTD.

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CONTEK, INC., d/b/a SNOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

As this case has been pending for some time, the Parties wish to initially update responses to discovery by the above-referenced deadline. While supplemental responses will be provided by this date, the Parties recognize their continuing duty and obligation to supplement discovery responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and understand that this deadline to initially supplement does nothing to preempt this duty and obligation. 3

1