Infineon Technologies AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corporation

Filing 338

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 336 Stipulation.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014)

Download PDF
Case3:11-cv-06239-MMC Document336 Filed09/08/14 Page1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EDWARD R. REINES (Bar No. 135960) edward.reines@weil.com SONAL N. MEHTA (Bar No. 222086) sonal.mehta@weil.com ANNE CAPPELLA (Bar No. 181402) anne.cappella@weil.com JUSTIN M. LEE (Bar No. 268310) justin.m.lee@weil.com BLAKE R. DAVIS (Bar No. 294360) blake.davis@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 9 10 Attorneys for Defendant Volterra Semiconductor Corporation 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, Plaintiff, 15 16 17 18 Case No. CV-11-6239 (MMC) (DMR) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING VOLTERRA’S TIME TO RESPOND TO INFINEON’S MOTION TO DISCLOSE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO ITS APPOINTED EXPERT, PETER ELENIUS vs. VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Defendant. 19 20 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME 1 CASE NO. CV-11-6239 (MMC) (DMR) Case3:11-cv-06239-MMC Document336 Filed09/08/14 Page2 of 4 1 Defendant and Counterclaimant Volterra Semiconductor Corporation (“Volterra”) 2 Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Infineon Technologies AG (“Infineon”) and (collectively “the 3 Parties”) have conferred by and through their counsel and pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 4 7-12, and subject to the Court’s approval, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 5 6 WHEREAS, on July 17, 2012, the Court entered the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 104); 7 WHEREAS, the Protective Order requires each party to notify the other in advance of 8 disclosing documents designated “Highly Confidential - Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” to an 9 expert witness and provide the party who designated the material confidential opportunity to 10 11 12 object; WHEREAS, on August 22, 2014, Infineon disclosed to Volterra its intent to disclose confidential information to Mr. Peter Elenius; 13 WHEREAS, on August 29, 2014, Volterra objected to the disclosure; 14 WHEREAS, the Protective Order requires, upon unresolved objections, the party seeking 15 to disclose confidential information to file a Motion with the Court within 5 days of the objection, 16 seeking permission to disclose the confidential information; 17 18 19 20 21 WHEREAS, on September 4, 2014 the Court extended the time for Infineon to file its opening motion until September 5, 2014, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and proposed order; WHEREAS, the Parties have been negotiating additional protections that may resolve Volterra’s objections to Infineon’s disclosure of confidential information to Mr. Elenius; WHEREAS, the Parties mutually agree that those discussions may be useful in an effort to 22 resolve the dispute without Court intervention and mutually agree to extend Volterra’s time 23 period to respond to Infineon’s Motion To Disclose Confidential Information To Its Appointed 24 Expert, Peter Elenius; and 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, set forth below are the previous time modifications in this case: (a) Stipulation and Order regarding date by which Volterra may answer, move or otherwise plead in response to complaint extended to March 16, 2010 (ECF No. 8); (b) Stipulation and Order Extending Response and Hearing Dates re Plaintiff’s STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME 1 CASE NO. CV-11-6239 (MMC) (DMR) Case3:11-cv-06239-MMC Document336 Filed09/08/14 Page3 of 4 1 Motion for Leave to Amend Its Infringement Contentions to Add Additional Model Numbers 2 (ECF No. 202). 3 4 (c) Stipulation Request and Order Changing Time Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(A) (ECF No. 211). 5 (d) Stipulation and Order Extending Response and Hearing Dates re Plaintiff’s 6 Motion for Leave to Amend Its Infringement Contentions to Add Additional Model Numbers 7 (ECF No. 218). 8 (e) Clerk’s Notice Continuing Case Management Conference (ECF No. 221) 9 (f) Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Management Conference (ECF No. (g) Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Management Conference (ECF No. (h) Stipulation and Order Continuing Case Management Conference (ECF No. (i) Stipulated Request And Order Changing Time Pursuant To Civil Local 10 238). 11 12 283). 13 14 288). 15 16 Rule 6-2(A) (ECF No. 334). 17 18 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby propose, stipulate and agree as follows, by and through 19 their respective counsel of record, and subject to the Court’s approval, that: 20 1. Volterra shall have until Tuesday, September 9, 2014 to file its opposition to 21 Infineon’s Motion to Disclose Confidential Information to its Appointed Expert, Peter 22 Elenius (ECF No 335). 23 24 25 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 26 27 28 STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME 2 CASE NO. CV-11-6239 (MMC) (DMR) Case3:11-cv-06239-MMC Document336 Filed09/08/14 Page4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, 1 2 Dated: September 8, 2014 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES 3 4 By: /s/ Justin M. Lee Justin M. Lee Attorneys for Defendant Volterra Semiconductor Corporation 5 6 7 8 Dated: September 8, 2014 BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. 9 By: /s/ Aaron D. Davidson Aaron D. Davidson Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Infineon Technologies AG 10 11 12 13 14 ORDER 15 Volterra shall have until Tuesday, September 9, 2014 to file its opposition to Infineon’s Motion to Disclose Confidential Information to its Appointed Expert, Peter Elenius [Docket No. 335]. ORDER ED R NIA DATED: September 9, 2014 O IT IS S ___________________________________ M. Ryu R NIA S UNIT ED RT H F D IS T IC T O R C LI N A H ER ORDERED Judge Donna FO NO RT 22 S DISTRICT TE C TA IT IS SO ER RT U O NO 21 FO Donna M. Ryu Ryu nna M. United States o Judge D Magistrate Judge 20 LI 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT ED 18 ISTRIC ES D TC AT T RT U O S 17 A 16 N F D IS T IC T O R C 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME 3 CASE NO. CV-11-6239 (MMC) (DMR)

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?