Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Filing 1144

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 1143 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Modify Protective Order filed by Mformation Software Technologies, Inc.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/25/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

EDWARD R. REINES (Bar No. 135960)
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for MFORMATION SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

6
7
8
9
10
11

JUSTIN E. GRAY (Bar No. 282452)
[e-mail]
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3579 Valley Centre Drive , Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92130-3302
Telephone: [phone]

LINDA S. DEBRUIN (Admitted to this
Court on September 27, 1991)
[e-mail]
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Defendants
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and
RESEARCH IN MOTION
CORPORATION

Attorney for MFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16

MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and
RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION,

Case No. C-08-4990 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE
ORDER

Defendants.

22
23

The undersigned counsel for Defendants Research In Motion Limited and

24

Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, “Defendants-Appellees”), and for Plaintiff

25

Mformation Technologies, Inc. (“Mformation Technologies”), along with the undersigned

26

counsel for Mformation Software Technologies, Inc. (“Mformation Software”), hereby

27

stipulate and agree, subject to the Court’s approval, as follows:

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-04990 EMC

1

WHEREAS, the above-captioned action is on appeal to the United States

2

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Mformation Technologies v. Research in

3

Motion, No. 2012-1679, 2013-1123 (Fed. Cir.);

4

WHEREAS, Mformation Software has moved, pursuant to FRAP 43, to

5

substitute as appellant based on its contention that it has obtained Mformation

6

Technologies’ rights in this litigation, including all right, title, and interest to the patents-

7

in-suit and the right to sue for past infringement;

8

WHEREAS, Defendants-Appellees have opposed Mformation Software’s

9

motion to substitute as appellant and have moved to dismiss the appeal but, without

10

waiving their rights with respect to such motions, desire to facilitate briefing under the

11

schedule set by the Federal Circuit;

12

WHEREAS, the Protective Order in effect in this case contemplates

13

modification with this Court’s approval, see Dkt. No. 51 [Stipulated Protective Order (as

14

modified by the Court)] at § 6.4; and

15

WHEREAS, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and over

16

collateral aspects of the above-captioned case not affecting the questions presented on

17

appeal1;

18
19

THEREFORE, Mformation Technologies, Defendants-Appellees, and
Mformation Software hereby stipulate to the following:

20
21

1.

Section 1 of the May 14, 2009 Protective Order (Dkt. No. 51) (“the

Protective Order”) is amended to add the following as its final paragraph:

22
23
1

24
25
26
27

See In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (exception to general rule that
the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction “where the district
court action aids” the appeals court “in [its] review”); Weaver v. Fla. Power & Light Co.,
172 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 1999) (“The general rule regarding divestiture of jurisdiction”
does “not apply to collateral matters not affecting the questions presented on appeal.”);
see also Dkt. No. 51 [Protective Order] at § 6.2 (this Court shall retain jurisdiction over
the parties and any other person who has had access to Protected Information pursuant to
this Order”).

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

2

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-04990 EMC

1

All provisions of this Order applicable to Mformation Technologies

2

and its Outside Counsel shall apply to and be binding on Mformation

3

Software and its Outside Counsel, respectively.

4

Mformation Software shall be permitted access to Protected Information

5

under this Order to the same extent and subject to the same restrictions and

6

obligations as Outside Counsel for Mformation Technologies.

7

2.

Outside Counsel for

The Protective Order is also amended to add the following section:

8

5.9

9

March 11, 2013)

Effect of Modification (added by stipulation of

10

Mformation Software shall be bound by the restrictions of

11

this Protective Order as if it were a Receiving Party with respect to

12

any Discovery Material.

13
14

3.

No other changes to the May 14, 2009 Protective Order are authorized

hereby.

15
16

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

17
18

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 11, 2013

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

19
20

By:

21
22
23

/s/ Edward R. Reines
Edward R. Reines
Attorney for
MFORMATION
SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

3

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-04990 EMC

1

Dated: March 11, 2013

KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP

2
3

By:

4
5
6

/s/ Linda S. Debruin
Linda S. Debruin
Attorney for Defendants
RESEARCH IN MOTION
LIMITED and RESEARCH
IN MOTION
CORPORATION

7
8

Dated: March 11, 2013

FOLEY & LARNDER LLP

9
By:

10
11
12

/s/ Justin E. Gray
Justin E. Gray
Attorney for Plaintiff
MFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

13
14

I, Edward R. Reines, am the ECF user whose identification and password

15

are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Modify Protective Order.

16

In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Linda S. Debruin and Justin

17

E. Gray have concurred in this filing.

18
19

Dated: March 11, 2013

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

20
21

By:

22

/s/ Edward R. Reines
Edward R. Reines

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

4

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-04990 EMC

1

ORDER ON THE FOREGOING STIPULATION

2

therefor, renders this stipulation a binding ORDER of this Court.

4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
S

8

DERED
Hon. Edward M. Chen
SO OR
IT IS

U.S. District Court Judge

9
dwa
Judge E

12

A

H

ER

LI

RT

11

hen

rd M. C

NO

10

R NIA

3/25/13
Dated:

UNIT
ED

7

RT
U
O

6

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

FO

3

The Court, having reviewed the above stipulation and finding good cause

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

5

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-04990 EMC