Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation, 4:18-cv-01885-HSG. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190123a38 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corp. ("Philips") together with Defendants Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation, ASUSTek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International, YiFang USA, Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun, Inc., HTC Corporation, and Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile,
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corp. ("Philips") together with Defendants Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation, ASUSTek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International, YiFang USA, Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun, Inc., HTC Corporation, and Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), through counsel, hereby respectfully file this stipulated request to extend Philips' opposition to Defendants' Motion for Leave, currently due on January 18, 2019, and Defendants' reply in support of their Motion for Leave, currently due on January 25, 2019:

WHEREAS, on January 4, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No. 584) ("Motion for Leave");

WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Philips' opposition to Defendants' Motion for Leave is currently due on January 18, 2019, and Defendants' reply in support of their Motion for Leave is currently due on January 25, 2019;

WHEREAS, in view of ongoing depositions and related discovery activity, Philips has requested a one-week extension of time to January 25, 2019 for Philips to file its opposition to allow Philips adequate time to fully and completely respond to the Motion for Leave;

WHEREAS, Defendants have consented to Philips' requested extension;

WHEREAS, the parties have further agreed to extend the deadline for Defendants' reply in support of their Motion for Leave to February 8, 2019;

WHEREAS, the hearing regarding this motion is currently scheduled for April 11, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.;

WHEREAS, the extensions of time for Philips' opposition and Defendants' reply are not expected to alter the date for the currently scheduled hearing;

WHEREAS, under Civ. L.R. 6-2(a)(3), the parties confirm that this requested extension of the fact discovery deadline will not impact any other deadlines in these cases;

WHEREAS, under Civ. L.R. 6-2(a)(2), the parties report that the parties have made and the Court has approved five previous stipulations seeking to modify the schedule in these cases: (a-b) two granting Philips' unopposed requests for an additional week of time to file reply briefs supporting its motion to partially consolidate these matters; (c) one granting Defendants' unopposed motion for a letter rogatory: (d) one granting Defendants' request for discovery into documents produced by Philips; and (e) one granting the parties' joint request to extend fact discovery for the depositions of certain individuals and entities Nos. 464, 465, 582, 593, 594;

WHEREAS, the parties also sought additional extensions of time from the District of Delaware before transfer of these actions to this Court, but have not reported those here because they do not believe Civ. L.R. 6-2(a)(2) calls for them;

NOW, THEREFORE, Philips and Defendants, through counsel, hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court extend Philips' opposition to Defendants' Motion for Leave to January 25, 2019 and Defendants' reply in support of their Motion for Leave to February 8, 2019.

CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i) ATTESTATION

I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed above to execute this document on their behalf.

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