Copytele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
Filing
98
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 97 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Copytele, Inc. Case Management Statement due by 4/17/2014. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/24/2014 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/11/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014)
1
6
Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260)
(efastiff@lchb.com)
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
(drudolph@lchb.com)
Melissa A. Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
(mgardner@lchb.com)
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc.
2
3
4
5
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
COPYTELE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
13
Plaintiff,
14
Case No. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
v.
15
16
17
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, a
Taiwanese corporation; E INK
HOLDINGS, INC., a Taiwanese
corporation; and E INK CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
February 20, 2014
10:30 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
The Honorable Edward M. Chen
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order is
2
entered into by and between Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc. (“CopyTele”) and Defendants E Ink
3
Holdings, Inc., a Taiwanese corporation, E Ink Corporation, a Delaware corporation (collectively
4
“E Ink”), and AU Optronics Corporation (“AUO”), a Taiwanese corporation.
5
WHEREAS, CopyTele filed its complaint in this action on January 28, 2013;
6
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2013, AUO filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the
7
litigation, and E Ink filed motions to dismiss all claims against it and in the alternative to stay the
8
claims against it pending arbitration between CopyTele and AUO;
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2013, in light of CopyTele’s agreement to arbitrate its claims
9
10
against AUO, this Court stayed the claims against all defendants pending the resolution of the
11
arbitration (Dkt. No. 91);
WHEREAS, the parties engaged in Settlement Conference proceedings before Magistrate
12
13
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in August and September but were not successful in resolving the
14
case (Dkt. Nos. 93 & 94);
15
WHEREAS, CopyTele filed its Demand for Arbitration before the American Arbitration
16
Association on September 17, 2013, and AUO filed its Answer in the arbitration on October 28,
17
2013;
18
19
20
21
22
WHEREAS, a Preliminary Hearing in the arbitration was held on February 4, 2014, and
an initial Procedural Order was issue on February 6, 2014;
WHEREAS, the Procedural Order requests that CopyTele and AUO confer on various
aspects of the discovery schedule;
WHEREAS, in light of the status of the arbitration and the ongoing status of discussions
23
regarding the scheduling of discovery, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the
24
Case Management Conference 60 days;
25
26
27
28
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that:
1. The Case Management Conference shall be continued from February 20, 2014 to
April 24, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.
2. Pursuant to Civil General Standing Order No. 6, the Case Management
-1-
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC
1
Conference, Statement will be due on or before April 17, 2014.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC
1
Dated: February 10, 2014
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
2
3
By:
4
5
/s/ Eric B. Fastiff
Eric B. Fastiff
Eric B. Fastiff
David T. Rudolf
Melissa Gardner
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
efastiff@lchb.com
drudolph@lchb.com
mgardner@lchb.com
6
7
8
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff COPYTELE, INC.
11
Dated: February 10, 2014
CROWELL & MORING LLP
12
13
By:
/s/ Beatrice B. Nguyen
Beatrice B. Nguyen
14
17
Beatrice B. Nguyen
275 Battery Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 986-2800
Facsimile: (415) 986.2827
bbnguyen@crowell.com
18
Attorneys for Defendant E INK CORPORATION
15
16
19
Dated: February 10, 2014
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
20
21
By:
/s/ Matthew Rawlinson
Matthew Rawlinson
22
23
24
25
26
Matthew Rawlinson
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 328-4600
Facsimile: (650) 463-2600
matt.rawlinson@lw.com
Attorneys for Defendant AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION
27
28
-3-
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC
1
2
ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in the
3
filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.
4
DATED: February 10, 2014
/s/ David T. Rudolph
David T. Rudolph
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. For good cause shown:
1. The Case Management Conference shall be continued from February 20, 2014 to
3
April 24, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.
4
2. Pursuant to Civil General Standing Order No. 6, the Case Management
5
Conference, Statement will be due on or before April 17, 2014.
7
, 2014
RT
13
dward
Judge E
NO
12
ER
15
n
M. Che
A
H
14
R NIA
11
DERED
O OR
IT IS S
FO
10
The Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge
UNIT
ED
9
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
Dated:
2/11
S
8
LI
6
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER TO TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?