Rambus Inc v. LSI Corporation
Filing
135
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON LSI'S MOTION TO AMEND. Motion Hearing set for 3/14/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/22/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
GREGORY P. STONE (SBN 078329)
gregory.stone@mto.com
KATHERINE K. HUANG (SBN 219798)
katherine.huang@mto.com
PETER E. GRATZINGER (SBN 228764)
peter.gratzinger@mto.com
KEITH R.D. HAMILTON (SBN 252115)
keith.hamilton@mto.com
DAVID H. PENNINGTON (SBN 272238)
david.pennington@mto.com
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
PETER A. DETRE (SBN 182619)
peter.detre@mto.com
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
DAVID E. SIPIORA (SBN 124951)
dsipiora@kilpatricktownsend.com
DANIEL S. YOUNG (Pro Hac Vice)
dsyoung@kilpatricktownsend.com
JOHN CADKIN (Pro Hac Vice)
jcadkin@kilpatricktownsend.com
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP
1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202-5556
Telephone: (303) 571-4000
Facsimile: (303) 571-4321
ROBERT J. ARTUZ (SBN 227789)
rartuz@kilpatricktownsend.com
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP
1080 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 326-2400
Facsimile: (650) 326-2422
Attorneys for Defendant
LSI CORPORATION
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RAMBUS INC.
14
15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
19
RAMBUS INC.,
Case No. 3:10-CV-05446- RS
Plaintiff,
20
21
v.
22
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING HEARING ON LSI’S
MOTION TO AMEND
LSI CORPORATION,
23
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING HEARING
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-05446-RS
1
2
3
4
5
WHEREAS, the motion of Defendant LSI Corporation (“LSI”) for leave to amend its
answer and counterclaims is set for hearing on February 28, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.;
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013, it was announced that Plaintiff Rambus Inc. and LSI
have agreed to settle all pending disputes between the parties;
WHEREAS, the parties expect that, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement
6
agreement, they will shortly file a stipulation dismissing all claims and counterclaims in this
7
action; and
8
9
10
11
WHEREAS, the parties agree that, if the hearing on LSI’s motion were continued for two
weeks, it is highly likely that the stipulation of dismissal will be filed during that time and the
hearing could be removed from the Court’s calendar.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by and between the parties through their
12
counsel of record that, subject to the Court’s approval, the hearing on LSI’s motion for leave to
13
amend its answer and counterclaims shall be continued until March 14, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.
14
15
16
DATED: February 22, 2013
17
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
By:
18
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RAMBUS INC.
20
21
22
23
DATED: February 22, 2013
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
By:
24
25
/s/ Peter A. Detre________________
Peter A. Detre
/s/ Robert J. Artuz______________
Robert J. Artuz
Attorneys for Defendant
LSI CORPORATION
26
27
28
-1-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING HEARING
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-05446-RS
1
Filer’s Attestation
2
I, Peter A. Detre, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being
3
used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING
4
ON LSI’S MOTION TO AMEND. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest
5
that the above-named signatories concur in this filing.
6
7
DATED: February 22, 2013
_________/s/ Peter A. Detre__________
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated: ____________________
2/22/13
____________________________________
Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Court Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING HEARING
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-05446-RS
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?