Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 21

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 19 RE: SECOND 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 11/7/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012)

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: SECOND 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. 6-1(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
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

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;

18

WHEREAS the Parties entered into a Stipulation and Proposed Order re: Further

19

Extension of Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to Answer or Otherwise

20

Response to First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 14] on October 31, 2012, requesting that the Court

21

set November 9, 2012 as the deadline for Roche Molecular’s responsive pleading, and the Court

22

issued an Order approving that request on November 1, 2012 (the “November 1, 2012 Order”)

23

[Dkt. 15];

24

WHEREAS subsequent to the issuance of the November 1, 2012 Order, Mr. Rabinowitz

25

contacted counsel for Cepheid and requested a further extension of the responsive pleading

26

deadline until November 16, 2012, in view of the continued and prolonged closure of Fried

27

Frank’s offices due to storm damage and the general disruption of basic services in the

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

1072836 v2/HN

2.

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

1

surrounding area (see Declaration of Stephen S. Rabinowitz, filed herewith), and counsel for

2

Cepheid graciously agreed to this second further request for extension; and

3

WHEREAS this second further stipulation to extend the time for Roche Molecular to

4

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

5

or any deadline already fixed by Court order, other than the November 9, 2012 deadline set forth

6

in the November 1, 2012 Order, and this stipulation and the Declaration of Stephen S. Rabinowitz

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11

Complaint is extended to and including November 16, 2012.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

12
13

Dated: November 6, 2012

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

14
15

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

16
17
18

Dated: November 6, 2012

19

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

1072836 v2/HN

3.

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

1

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

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 6th day of November, 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
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

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;

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
11/7/12

UNIT
ED

S

Dated:

RT
U
O

RT

9

dwa
Judge E

ER

H

10
11

hen

rd M. C

NO

8

FO

7

R NIA

ERED
O ORD Judge
United States District
IT IS S

6

LI

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

A

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

1072836 v2/HN

5.

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