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)

Download PDF
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?