Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 9

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 8 RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- CORRECTION OF DOCKET #, terminated 7 filed by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/24/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2012)

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

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

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16

CEPHEID,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19

Case No. CV12-04411 (EMC)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: 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(a)]

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

20
Defendants.
21
22
23

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

24

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

25

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

26

their respective counsel.

27
28

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

COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO AL TO

1.

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

1

WHEREAS Cepheid filed its First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

2

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

3

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint;

4

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

5

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

6

to and including November 2, 2012; and

7

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

8

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

9

already fixed by Court order and is therefore in accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-1(a);

10

[page break]

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

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 Amended

3
4

Complaint is extended to and including November 2, 2012.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6

Dated: September 21, 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: September 21, 2012

COOLEY LLP

11
12
13
14

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

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

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

5

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

6

Signatories hereto.

7

Executed this 21st day of September, 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

4.

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

1

ER

11

R NIA

dw
Judge E

H

10

RT

9

ard M.

NO

8

Chen

FO

7

DERED

O OR
UnitedIStates District Judge
IT S S

LI

6

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

5

24
Dated: September __, 2012

A

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

3

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore;

UNIT
ED

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
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO AL TO

5.

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