Kyocera Communications, Inc. v. Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd.

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE by Hon. William Alsup [granting 17 Stipulation].(whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2012)

ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE

1

Defendant Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff Kyocera

2

Communications, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to extend

3

time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) as

4

follows:

5

WHEREAS, on September 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Declaratory

6
Judgment;
7
8
9

WHEREAS, Defendant waived service of the Complaint and Defendant’s response to
Plaintiff’s Complaint is presently due to be filed and served on December 10, 2012;

10

WHEREAS, the Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for January 3, 2013;

11

WHEREAS, in March of 2011, Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint in the

12
13

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 4:11-cv-00163-RC-ALM,
alleging that Plaintiff infringed the three patents identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint in this Court.;

14
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2012, several defendants in the Texas case, including
15
16

Plaintiff, filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in the Texas case for lack of standing on the

17

basis that the named plaintiff, Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc., does not exist and does not own the

18

patents-in-suit (Dkt. No. 257);

19
20
21

WHEREAS, on September 25, 2012, Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc. filed a motion in the
Texas case to correct the name of the plaintiff from Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc. to Imperium IP
Holdings (Cayman), Ltd., the named Defendant in this case (Dkt. No. 258);

22
23
24

WHEREAS, the motion to dismiss and motion to correct the name of plaintiff have been
fully briefed and are currently pending before the Texas Court;

25

WHEREAS, granting Defendant an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint

26

and rescheduling the Initial Case Management Conference would preserve judicial resources by

27
28

2
Stipulation re Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint

1

permitting the Texas court an opportunity to rule on the motion to dismiss and motion to correct

2

the name of plaintiff before substantively proceeding with the present case;

3
4
5

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a thirty-day extension of time for Defendant to
respond to the Complaint from December 10, 2012 to January 9, 2013;
WHEREAS, no prior extensions of time have been requested or granted; and

6
WHEREAS, the Initial Case Management Conference, which has been scheduled for
7
8
9

January 3, 2013, should be rescheduled for a later date so that the Initial Case Management
Conference does not predate Defendant’s response to the Complaint.

10

THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate as follows:

11

1.

Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint no later than January 9, 2013; and

12

2.

The Initial Case Management Conference shall be rescheduled for Thursday,

13

January 24, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., or such other date as is convenient for the Court, before the

14
Honorable William Alsup. Not less than seven days prior, counsel shall submit a joint case
15
16

management conference statement not to exceed ten pages.

17
18

DATED: December 10, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

19
20

/s/ David M. Saunders
David M. Saunders
Attorneys for Defendant

21
22
23

DATED: December 10, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

24
/s/ Tharan Gregory Lanier
Tharan Gregory Lanier
Attorneys for Plaintiff

25
26
27
28

3
Stipulation re Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint

THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES.

R NIA

ERED
O ORD D
IT IS S
DIFIE
AS MO
lsup

RT

A

H

ER

FO

NO

illiam A

Judge W

LI

UNIT
ED

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

December 12, 2012.

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C