Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 15

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 14 FURTHER EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/1/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2012)

1
2
3
4

COOLEY LLP
MARK F. LAMBERT (197410)
([e-mail])
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
Stephen S. Rabinowitz
([e-mail])
Randy Eisensmith (pro hac vice)
([e-mail])
One New York Plaza
New York, New York 10004
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17

CEPHEID,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20

Case No. CV12-04411 (EMC)

v.
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
and F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD.,

21
Defendants.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: FURTHER EXTENSION
OF DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS,
INC. TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT [FRCP 15(A); C.L.R. 61(B); 6-2(A)]

22
23
24

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1 and 6-2 and Rule 15(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure (FRCP), this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order is entered into by and between Plaintiff

26

Cepheid and Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (“Roche Molecular”) by and through

27

their respective counsel.

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO AL TO

STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411

1
2

WHEREAS Cepheid filed its initial Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Complaint”)
on August 21, 2012;

3

WHEREAS Cepheid filed its First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

4

(“Amended Complaint”) on September 14, 2012, prior to the due date for Roche Molecular to

5

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint;

6

WHEREAS counsel for Roche Molecular requested, and counsel for Cepheid agreed, to

7

extend the time for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended

8

Complaint to and including November 2, 2012;

9

WHEREAS the Parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order re: Extension of

10

Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to Answer or Otherwise Response to First

11

Amended Complaint [Dkt. 8] on September 21, 2012, which the Court entered as an Order dated

12

September 24, 2012;

13

WHEREAS lead counsel for Defendant Roche Molecular, Stephen Rabinowitz, and

14

Randy Eisensmith of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, requested a further extension

15

of time for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint due

16

to the prolonged disruption of power and closure of their New York City office in view of

17

Hurricane Sandy, and counsel for Cepheid agreed to extend such time to November 9, 2012; and

18

WHEREAS this stipulation to extend the time for Roche Molecular to answer or

19

otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint will not alter the date of any event or any

20

deadline already fixed by Court order, other than the November 2, 2012 deadline set forth in the

21

September 24, 2012 Order, this stipulation and the Declaration of Stephen S. Rabinowitz filed

22

herewith is therefore in accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6-2;

23

[page break]

24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO AL TO

1072836 v2/HN

2.

STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411

1

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

2

The deadline for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended

3
4

Complaint is extended to and including November 9, 2012.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6

Dated: October 31, 2012

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

7
/s/ Erik R. Puknys
Erik R. Puknys (SBN 190926)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CEPHEID

8
9
10
Dated: October 31, 2012

COOLEY LLP

11
12

/s/ Mark F. Lambert
Mark F. Lambert (SBN 197410)
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO AL TO

1072836 v2/HN

3.

STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411

FILER’S ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 5-1(i)(3)

1
2
3

I, Mark F. Lambert, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation and [Proposed]

4

Order Re: Further Extension of Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to

5

Answer or Otherwise Respond to First Amended Complaint has been obtained from each of the

6

other Signatories hereto.

7

Executed this 31st day of October, 2012, at Palo Alto, California.

8
9
/s/ Mark F. Lambert
Mark F. Lambert (SBN 197410)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO AL TO

1072836 v2/HN

4.

STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411

1

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore;
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

Dated:

11/1/12

UNIT
ED

6

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

United States District Judge
dward
Judge E

NO

8

RT

ER

H

9
10

n

M. Che

FO

7

LI

5

RT
U
O

4

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

3

A

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO AL TO

1072836 v2/HN

5.

STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411