24/7 Customer, Inc. v. LivePerson, Inc., 3:15-CV-02897-JST (KAW) (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170314772
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR LIVEPERSON'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . STIPULATION AND [ PROPOSED ] ORDER Pursuant to Civil L. R. 6-2 and 7-12, the parties submit this stipulation to extend the briefing schedule for LivePerson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 126). The parties agree to the following proposed briefing schedule: Current Due Date Stipulated Due Date [24]7's Opposi
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR LIVEPERSON'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . STIPULATION AND [ PROPOSED ] ORDER Pursuant to Civil L. R. 6-2 and 7-12, the parties submit this stipulation to extend the briefing schedule for LivePerson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 126). The parties agree to the following proposed briefing schedule: Current Due Date Stipulated Due Date [24]7's Opposit..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR LIVEPERSON'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to Civil L. R. 6-2 and 7-12, the parties submit this stipulation to extend the briefing schedule for LivePerson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 126). The parties agree to the following proposed briefing schedule:
Current Due Date Stipulated Due Date
[24]7's Opposition March 17, 2017 March 23, 2017
LivePerson's Reply March 24, 2017 March 31, 2017
Hearing April 13, 2017 April 20, 2017
In its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, LivePerson requests the Court invalidate all ten patents asserted in this case as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Based on the number of patents at issue and the potential impact of the motion, the parties agree that the Opposition and Reply briefs will benefit from an extended briefing schedule. Moreover, the requested extension will avoid overlap with the private mediation session scheduled for March 20, 2017, pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Selecting ADR Process (Dkt. No. 122). The requested extension will not affect the case schedule.
ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Michael W. De Vries.
/s/Mark E. Miller
Mark Miller (S.B. No. 130200)
markmiller@omm.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
[24]7 Customer, Inc. and 24/7 Customer
International Holdings, Ltd.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
