Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC v. SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., 3:12-cv-01011-JST (EDL). (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130507843 Visitors: 14
Filed: May 06, 2013
Latest Update: May 06, 2013
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR EON TO FILE A RESPONSE TO SERCOMM'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO: 1) COMPEL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS THAT COMPLY WITH PATENT L.R. 3-1; AND 2) FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY OR LIMIT CERTAIN DISCOVERY ELIZABETH D. LaPORTE, District Judge. Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC ("EON") hereby requests and Defendant SerComm Corporation ("SerComm") agrees to a ten (10) day extension of time for EON to file a response to SerCom
More

STIPULATED REQUEST AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR EON TO FILE A RESPONSE TO SERCOMM'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:

1) COMPEL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS THAT COMPLY WITH PATENT L.R. 3-1; AND

2) FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY OR LIMIT CERTAIN DISCOVERY

ELIZABETH D. LaPORTE, District Judge.

Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC ("EON") hereby requests and Defendant SerComm Corporation ("SerComm") agrees to a ten (10) day extension of time for EON to file a response to SerComm's Notice of Motion and Motion to:

1) An Order compelling EON to provide infringement contentions that comply with patent L.R. 3-1; and,

2) A Protective Order to stay or limit certain discovery.

On April 8, 2013, EON filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 674) for EON to respond to SerComm's Motion. On April 18, EON filed a Stipulated Request for Extension of Time. (Dkt. No. 677). Since then, the parties reached a tentative agreement regarding the above issues and expect to finalize the agreement in the next several days. Therefore, the motion will likely be mooted prior to any necessary hearing. The requested extension for time will move the Response due date to May 13, and the Reply due date to May 20, 2013. The motion is currently set for hearing on June 4, 2013. The parties request that the hearing be continued. In the event that the parties are unable to reach a resolution, the parties agree to reschedule a hearing date at the Court's earliest convenience.

The extension will affect no other date or deadline in this case. For the foregoing reasons, EON requests and SerComm does not oppose that the Court grant the request and extend the deadline for EON to file its response to SerComm's Motions.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

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