JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR SYMANTEC'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and Judge Gilliam's Standing Order, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan") and Defendant Symantec Corporation ("Symantec") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to the following request to modify the briefing schedule with respect to Symantec's Motion for Additional Claim Construction (Dkt. No. 135) (the "Motion"):

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2016, Symantec filed its Motion, which identified a hearing date of November 3, 2016 (Dkt. No. 135);

WHEREAS, Finjan requested an extension of the September 20, 2016 deadline to file its brief in opposition to the Motion, as Finjan is currently on trial in the matter Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01197-WHO. The trial is currently scheduled to continue through September 21, 2016;

WHEREAS, following a meet and confer on September 9, 2016, the parties agreed to a two-week extension of Finjan's deadline to file its brief in opposition to the Motion;

WHEREAS, the Parties respectfully request a modified briefing schedule pursuant to which Finjan will file its opposition to Symantec's Motion on October 4, 2016, Symantec will file its reply brief on October 18, 2016, and for a hearing to be held on November 3, 2016 subject to the Court's availability;

WHEREAS, there are no previous modifications in the case related to the timing of filing briefs for this Motion; and

WHERAS, this requested time modification would not have an effect on the remaining schedule for the case.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 5-1(I)

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from any other signatory to this document.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

There being a showing of good cause based on the parties' stipulation, the briefing schedule regarding Symantec's Motion for Additional Claim Construction is set forth below: