Finisar Corporation v. Oplink Communications Inc. et al

Filing 63

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/25/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2011)

*E-Filed 10/25/11*

1
2
3
4

COOLEY LLP
THOMAS J. FRIEL, JR.
(State Bar No. 80065)
([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

5
6
7
8

MARK T. SMITH (State Bar No. 260845)
([e-mail])
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

Daniel Johnson, Jr. (State Bar No. 57409)
Michael J. Lyons (State Bar No. 202284)
Harry F. Doscher (State Bar No. 245969)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2122
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.843.4001
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FINISAR CORPORATION

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SARAH J. GUSKE (State Bar No. 232467)
([e-mail])
WAYNE O. STACY (pro hac vice)
([e-mail])
380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and
OPTICAL COMMUNICATION
PRODUCTS, INC.

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20
21

FINISAR CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,

Case No. 5:10-cv-05617-RS

22

JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE

Plaintiff,
23
v.
24
25
26
27

OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, OPTICAL
COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1.

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-05617-RS

1
2
3

Whereas, the parties seek the Court’s clarification of certain deadlines and requirements
relating to issues of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112;
It is hereby Stipulated and Ordered that::

4

1. Other than for terms for which a party otherwise seeks a construction from the

5

Court or for 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) terms, it is not necessary for the parties to address

6

35 U.S.C. § 112 invalidity issues in Patent Local Rule 4 disclosures and not

7

addressing such issues in the Patent Local Rule 4 disclosures will not be deemed a

8

waiver of any of parties’ rights, defenses, or claims.

9

2. The deadline for filing any opening motions for summary judgment relating to

10

alleged invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 will be the same as the deadline for filing

11

opening summary judgment briefs on other issues—a deadline which has yet to be

12

ordered by the Court,

13
14

So Stipulated:
Dated: October 24, 2011

15

s/Sarah J. Guske
Sarah J. Guske (232467)

16

Attorneys for Defendants
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND
OPTICAL COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS,
INC.

17
18
19

COOLEY LLP

Dated: October 24, 2011

20

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

21

s/Dion Bregman
Dion Bregman

22

Attorneys for Plaintiff
FINISAR CORPORATION

23
24

Filer’s Attestation re signatures: Sarah J. Guske hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of
this document has been obtained.

25
IT IS SO ORDERED:
26
27

25
Dated: October __, 2011

28

United States District Court Judge

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2.

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-05617-RS