Rovi Solutions Corporation v. Lenovo (Singapore) PTE LTD et al

Filing 86

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 85 TO CONTINUE DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/3/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Megan Whyman Olesek (CSB No. 191218)
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1216
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650-384-4701
[e-mail]
John Flock (admitted pro hac vice)
KENYON & KENYON LLP
One Broadway
New York, New York 10004-1007
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212-425-5288
[e-mail]

9

Douglas E. Ringel (admitted pro hac vice)
Yariv Waks (admitted pro hac vice)
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1500 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-1257
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-220-4201
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Lenovo
(United States) Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
Civil Case No. 12-cv-01398 RS
Plaintiff,
v.
LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
LENOVO (BEIJING) LTD., SHANGHAI
LENOVO ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.,
LENOVO (HUIYANG) ELECTRONIC
INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., and LENOVO
INFORMATION PRODUCTS (SHENZHEN)
CO., LTD.,

19

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE DEFENDANT
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.’S
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants.

20
21
22

ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 12-cv-04209 RS
(consolidated with 12-cv-01398-RS)

v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
Defendant.

27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 12-CV-04209 RS

1

WHEREAS, defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo-U.S.”) filed a motion in

2

C.A. No. 12-cv-04209 to dismiss plaintiff Rovi Solutions Corporation’s (“Rovi’s”) claims of

3

indirect and willful infringement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on August 31, 2012 (D.I. 8);

4
5

WHEREAS, the Court granted Lenovo-U.S.’s motion to dismiss on November 15, 2012
(D.I. 34);

6

WHEREAS, Rovi filed an amended complaint on December 17, 2012 (D.I. 35);

7

WHEREAS, Lenovo-U.S.’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the amended

8

complaint is January 4, 2013;

9

And WHEREAS, in light of the holidays, Rovi has consented to extend Lenovo-U.S.’s

10

deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Rovi’s amended complaint until January 14, 2013;

11

It is therefore stipulated between the parties that, subject to the approval of the Court, the

12

deadline for Lenovo-U.S. to answer or otherwise respond to Rovi’s amended complaint (D.I. 35)

13

is January 14, 2013.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1-

CASE NO. 12-CV-04209 RS

1

Respectfully submitted,

Dated:

December 31, 2012

By /s/ Joseph M. Paunovich
Claude M Stern (CSB No. 96737)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

By: /s/ Megan Whyman Olesek
Megan Whyman Olesek (CSB No. 191218)
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1216
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650-384-4701
[e-mail]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Joseph M. Paunovich (CSB No. 228222)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Rovi Solutions
Corp.

15
16

John Flock (admitted pro hac vice)
KENYON & KENYON LLP
One Broadway
New York, New York 10004-1007
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212-425-5288
[e-mail]
Douglas E. Ringel (admitted pro hac vice)
Yariv Waks (admitted pro hac vice)
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1500 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-1257
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-220-4201
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Lenovo (United
States) Inc.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT

-2-

CASE NO. 12-CV-04209 RS

1
2
3

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 5-1
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that the
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

4
5

DATED: December 31, 2012

KENYON & KENYON LLP

6
7

By:

8
9

/s/ Megan Whyman Olesek
Megan W. Olesek
Attorneys for Defendants Lenovo (United
States) Inc.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT

-3-

CASE NO. 12-CV-04209 RS

1
2

ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: 1/3/

, 2013

By:
Hon. Richard Seeborg

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT

-4-

CASE NO. 12-CV-04209 RS