Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

KENU, INC. v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 15-cv-01429-JD. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170117719 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON KENU, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE [Civil L.R. 6-2] JAMES DONATO , District Judge . Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Kenu, Inc. ("Kenu"), and Belkin International, Inc. ("Belkin") hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court issue an Order rescheduling the hearing and briefing schedule on Kenu's Motion to Strike Belkin's New Proposed Claim Construction and Related Portions of Responsive Brief (Dkt. 49), currently set for February
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON KENU, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE

[Civil L.R. 6-2]

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Kenu, Inc. ("Kenu"), and Belkin International, Inc. ("Belkin") hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court issue an Order rescheduling the hearing and briefing schedule on Kenu's Motion to Strike Belkin's New Proposed Claim Construction and Related Portions of Responsive Brief (Dkt. 49), currently set for February 16, 2017.

Specifically, the parties request that the Motion to Strike be heard at the claim construction hearing on Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Belkin agrees to file an opposition brief by January 16, 2017, and Kenu waives the filing of a reply brief. The parties request to shorten time because the relief requested in the Motion to Strike directly impacts whether the Court will consider Belkin's proposed construction of the term "rod(s)," and therefore the interests of judicial economy and efficiency favor hearing the Motion to Strike at the claim construction hearing. This proposed schedule modification will not affect any other deadlines in this case.

There have been two previous time modifications in this action: (1) stipulation extending time for Belkin to respond to the Complaint (Dkt. 17), and (2) Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 36). This request for shortening time would have no effect on the schedule for the case other than advancing the hearing date on the Motion to Strike.

CONCURRENCE IN FILING

I, Craig C. Crockett, hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The hearing on the Motion to Strike (Dkt. 49) is advanced from February 16, 2017, to January 19, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Belkin shall file an opposition brief by January 16, 2017, and no reply brief shall be filed.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer