Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ASETEK HOLDINGS, INC. v. COOLIT SYSTEMS INC., 3:12-CV-04498-EMC. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20121130742 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 26, 2012
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER RESCHEDULING THE DECEMBER 14, 2012 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [PROPOSED] ORDER EDWARD M. CHEN. District Judge. On October 3, 2012, the Court scheduled a Case Management Conference for December 14, 2012 (Dkt. 11). On October 26, 2012, Defendant CoolIT Systems Inc. ("CoolIT") filed a Motion to Stay the Civil Action Pending the Outcome of the Inter Partes Reexaminations of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764 (Dkt. 20) and a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed
More

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER RESCHEDULING THE DECEMBER 14, 2012 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[PROPOSED] ORDER

EDWARD M. CHEN. District Judge.

On October 3, 2012, the Court scheduled a Case Management Conference for December 14, 2012 (Dkt. 11). On October 26, 2012, Defendant CoolIT Systems Inc. ("CoolIT") filed a Motion to Stay the Civil Action Pending the Outcome of the Inter Partes Reexaminations of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764 (Dkt. 20) and a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 22). CoolIT noticed both motions for hearing on January 17, 2013.

Pursuant to the Court's October 3, 2012 Order, the parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a request for an order rescheduling the Initial Case Management Conference for January 17, 2013, with the understanding that disclosures under the Patent Local Rules will remain keyed off of the original December 14, 2012, Initial Case Management Conference date (with Plaintiffs' Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-2 disclosures due on December 28, 2012, and CoolIT's Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 disclosures due February 11, 2013). The parties submit that good cause exists in view of the desirability of consolidating the Case Management Conference with the hearing on CoolIT's motions set for January 17, 2013.

By his signature below, counsel for Defendant attests that counsel for Plaintiffs concurs in the filing of this stipulation.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

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