Genentech, Inc. et al v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH et al
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING ADR DEADLINE. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 11/01/10. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2010)
Genentech, Inc. et al v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH et al
1 Counsel Listed on Following Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, 14 15 16 vs. Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING ADR DEADLINE [Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2] Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge CASE NOS. C 08-4909 SI (BZ) C 09-4919 SI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17 GENENTECH, INC. and BIOGEN IDEC INC., 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING ADR DEADLINE
Case Nos. C 08-4909 SI (BZ) C 09-4919 SI Dockets.Justia.com
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & 2 SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 3 firstname.lastname@example.org 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 5 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) email@example.com 7 Gabriel S. Gross (Bar No. 254672) firstname.lastname@example.org 8 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 9 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 10 Attorneys for Defendant Genentech, Inc. 11 TOWNSEND, TOWNSEND & CREW LLP 12 James G. Gilliland (Bar No. 107988) email@example.com 13 David J. Tsai (Bar No. 244479) firstname.lastname@example.org 14 Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor 15 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 576-0200 16 Facsimile: (415) 576-0300 17 Anne M. Rogaski (Bar No. 184754) email@example.com 18 379 Lytton Avenue 19 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 326-2400 20 Facsimile: (650) 326-2422 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING ADR DEADLINE Case Nos. C 08-4909 SI (BZ) C 09-4919 SI
FOLEY HOAG LLP Donald R. Ware (pro hac vice) firstname.lastname@example.org Claire Laporte (pro hac vice) email@example.com Jeremy A. Younkin firstname.lastname@example.org Seaport World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210-2600 Telephone: (617) 832-1180 Facsimile: (617) 832-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Biogen Idec Inc. HARVEY SISKIND LLP D. Peter Harvey (Bar No. 55712) email@example.com Naomi Jane Gray firstname.lastname@example.org Raffi V. Zerounian (Bar No. 236388) email@example.com Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 354-0100 Facsimile: (415) 391-7124 FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO William E. Solander (admitted pro hac vice) firstname.lastname@example.org Dominick A. Conde (admitted pro hac vice) email@example.com Peter D. Shapiro (admitted pro hac vice) firstname.lastname@example.org Joshua A. Davis (admitted pro hac vice) email@example.com 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10104 Telephone: 212-218-2100 Facsimile: 212-218-2200 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiff Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
2 ("Sanofi") and Defendants Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and Biogen Idec Inc. ("Biogen") 3 respectfully request that the Court enter the following stipulation regarding the deadline for 4 conducting ADR. The parties now AGREE AND STIPULATE to extend the deadline for the 5 parties to conduct an ADR from October 31, 2010 to January 31, 2011. 6 7 1. Reason for the Request
In its Order Selecting ADR Process (D.N. 74), the Court directed the parties to conduct a
8 private ADR session 60 days after the entry of the Claim Construction Order. The Court issued its 9 Claim Construction Order on June 23, 2010. On August 4, the parties requested additional time to 10 select an appropriate mediator for this dispute, extending the deadline to conduct ADR to October 11 31, 2010. The parties have agreed on a mediator, but due to the mediator's limited availability 12 through the end of 2010, the mediation will be scheduled to occur in January 2011. 13 14 2. Prior Time Modifications
The time for Sanofi to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint was previously
15 extended. The briefing and hearing schedule for Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction brought 16 by Sanofi and its former co-defendants was temporarily vacated. The briefing and hearing schedule 17 for Genentech's Motion To Disqualify McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert and Berghoff LLP was 18 extended by four weeks. The briefing and hearing schedule for Sanofi's Motion for Leave to 19 Amend Its Pleadings and Infringement Contentions was previously extended by five weeks and then 20 extended again by seven weeks. The Markman hearing and tutorial were previously continued by 21 45 days. The date for Plaintiff's oppositions to Defendants' motions for summary judgment was 22 extended by approximately three weeks. The date for Defendants' replies to Plaintiff's summary 23 judgment oppositions was extended by one week. A previous extension of time to conduct ADR is 24 described above. 25 26 27 28 -2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING ADR DEADLINE Case Nos. C 08-4909 SI (BZ) C 09-4919 SI
Effect of Requested Modification
The requested modification will have no effect on the rest of the schedule in this action. So Stipulated.
1 DATED: October 27, 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: October 27, 2010 9 10 11 12 13 14 DATED: October 27, 2010 15 16 17 18 19 20
HARVEY SISKIND LLP FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
By /s/ William E. Solander Attorneys for Plaintiff Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis Attorneys for Defendant Genentech, Inc.
TOWNSEND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP FOLEY HOAG LLP
By /s/ Claire Laporte Attorneys for Defendant Biogen Idec Inc.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
ISTRIC ES D TC AT T
___________________________________________ ER C N The Honorable Susan Illston F D IS T IC T O R United States District Court Judge
-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING ADR DEADLINE Case Nos. C 08-4909 SI (BZ) C 09-4919 SI
RT U O
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?