Copytele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 34

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 27 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending E Ink Holdings, Inc. and E Ink Corporation's Time to Respond to Complaint filed by E Ink Holdings, Inc., E Ink Corporation. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/13/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2013)

1
2
3

Beatrice B. Nguyen (CSB No. 172961, [e-mail])
CROWELL & MORING LLP
275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.986.2827

4
5
6
7
8

David Laing (Pro Hac Vice pending, [e-mail])
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-628-5116
Attorneys for Defendants
E INK HOLDINGS, INC. and E INK CORPORATION

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
14

COPYTELE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,

15
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
18
19
20

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, a
Taiwanese corporation; AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION AMERICA, a California
corporation; E INK HOLDINGS, INC., a
Taiwanese corporation; and E INK
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00380-MMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS E
INK HOLDINGS, INC. AND E INK
CORPORATION’S TIME TO RESPOND
TO COMPLAINT
[Civil L. R. 6-1(a)]

Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING E INK’S TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-MMC

ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

DCACTIVE-22638935.2

1

WHEREAS, on January 28, 2013, Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc. (“CopyTele”) filed a complaint

2

(“Complaint”) against Defendants E Ink Holdings, Inc. (“E Ink Holdings”), a Taiwanese

3

corporation, and E Ink Corporation (“E Ink Corp.”), a Delaware corporation;

4

WHEREAS, E Ink Corp.’s response to the Complaint was due on February 22, 2013;

5

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2013, CopyTele and E Ink Corp. agreed and stipulated to an

6

interim extension until March 8, 2013, for E Ink Corp. to answer or otherwise respond to the

7

Complaint while the parties finish their negotiations on a final extension; and

8
9
10

WHEREAS, E Ink Holdings has agreed to waive service of summons under Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to waive any objections to the absence of a summons or
service under the laws of the United States and Taiwan;

11

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that:

12

1.

E Ink Holdings shall waive service of summons under the Rule 4 of the Federal

13

Rules of Civil Procedure, and it shall waive any objections to the absence of a summons or

14

service under the laws of the United States and Taiwan.

15

2.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), E Ink Holdings and E Ink Corp. shall have 91

16

days from the date of the filing of the complaint up to and including Monday, April 29, 2013, to

17

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.

18

Dated: March 6, 2013

CROWELL & MORING LLP

19

/s/ Beatrice B. Nguyen

20

Beatrice B. Nguyen
Attorneys for Defendants
E INK HOLDINGS, INC. and
E INK CORPORATION

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING E INK’S TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-MMC

ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

DCACTIVE-22638935.2

1

Dated: March 6, 2013

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP

2
/s/ David T. Rudolph
3
Eric B. Fastiff
David T. Rudolf
Melissa Gardner
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COPYTELE, INC.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.
DATED: March 6, 2013

/s/ Beatrice B. Nguyen
Beatrice B. Nguyen

11
12
13
14

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendants E Ink Holdings,
Inc. and E Ink Corporation shall have up and including April 29, 2013, to answer or otherwise

16

respond to the Complaint.

17

Dated: _________________, 2013
3/13

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

dwar
Judge E

ER

23

A

H

22

FO

RT

21

en

d M. Ch

NO

20

LI

19

O
IT IS S

R NIA

___________________________________________
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
ED
United States District Judge
ORDER

UNIT
ED

18

S

15

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP

-2-

ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

DCACTIVE-22638935.2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING E INK’S TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00378-EMC