Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. et al
Filing
89
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 85 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims by Sophos Inc. and Sophos Ltd (Unopposed); Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Withdraw Sophos' Eighth Affirmative Defense and Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims of Inequitable C filed by Sophos Ltd., Sophos, Inc. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/10/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014)
2
3
4
5
6
JOHN M. NEUKOM (CA Bar No. 275887)
johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com
ANDREW H. HOLMES (CA Bar No. 260475)
drewholmes@quinnemanuel.com
ALICIA VEGLIA (CA Bar No. 291 070)
aliciaveglia@quinnemanuel.com
QUrnNEMANUELURQUHART&
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM, BarNo. 174931
sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
KATHRYN RILEY GRASSO, Bar No.
211187
kathryn.riley@dlapiper.com
DAVID R. KNUDSON, Bar No. 265461
david.knudson@dlapiper.com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Telephone:
619.699.2700
Facsimile:
619.699.270 I
Attorneys for PlaintiffFORTINET, INC .
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff SOPHOS INC., Counterclaim
PlaintiffSOPHOS LTD. and Defendants
MICHAEL VALENTINE and JASON
CLARK (limited appearance)
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
14
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-05831-EMC
FORTINET, INC., a corporation,
Plaintiff,
UNOPPOSED MOTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS BY SOPHOS
INC. AND SOPHOS LTD;
v.
15
16
17
SOPHOS INC., a corporation, MICHAEL
VALENTINE, an individual, and JASON
CLARK, an individual,
Defendants.
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO
WITHDRAW SOPHOS' EIGHTH
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND
EIGHTH AND NINTH
COUNTERCLAIMS OF
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
18
19
20
21
22
SOPHOS INC. and SOPHOS LTD.,
corporations,
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
v.
23
24
FORTINET, INC., a corporation,
Counterclaim Defendant.
25
26
27
28
DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SA.N DI EGO
-1WEST\25 1000302 .1
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05831-EMC
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Sophos Inc. and Counterclaim Plaintiff Sophos
2
Ltd. ("collectively "Sophos") and Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Forti net, Inc.
3
("Fortinet") hereby submit this Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Answer
4
And Counterclaims by Sophos. Counsel for Sophos and Fortinet have conferred and Fortinet has
5
agreed not to oppose this Motion for Leave. Sophos ' proposed Second Amended Answer seeks
6
to withdraw the Eighth Defense ofunenforceability of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,069,487 ("the ' 487
7
patent") and 8,195,938 ("the '938 patent") due to inequitable conduct and the Eighth and Ninth
8
Counterclaims ofunenforceability ofthe '487 and ' 938 patents due to inequitable conduct. A
9
copy ofSophos ' s proposed Second Amended Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A mark-up
10
version, showing the changes between Sophos' s First Amended Answer and Counterclaims and
11
Sophos's proposed Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Pursuant to~ 5 of the Amended Joint Case Management Statement (Doc. No. 59), good
12
13
cause for amendment exists because withdrawal of these inequitable conduct allegations will
14
conserve the time and resources ofthis Court and of the Parties.
Additionally, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, Sophos and Fortinet
15
16
hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that Sophos withdraws its Eighth
17
18
Defense ofunenforceability ofthe ' 487 and ' 938 patents due to inequitable conduct and the
19
Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims ofunenforceability ofthe ' 487 and '938 patents due to
20
inequitable conduct, and Sophos is barred from pursuing inequitable conduct theories against the
21
' 487 and '938 patents to the same extent Sophos would be barred if this Court granted the
22
proposed order (Doc. No. 72-1) submitted by Fortinet in the pending Motion to Dismiss and
23
Strike Sophos ' Counterclaims and Affirmative Defense (Doc. No . 72). Accordingly, the parties
24
also submit an additional proposed Order denying Fortinet' s pending Motion to Dismiss as moot.
25
IIIII
26
IIIII
27
IIIII
28
IIIII
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN DI EGO
-2WEST\251000302 .1
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05831-EMC
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
2
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 (i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the
3
filing of this document has been obtained from John Neukom.
4
Is/ Sean C. Cunningham
Sean C. Cunningham
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN OH!CO
-4WEST\251000302.1
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05831-EMC
PROPOSED ORDER
2
3
Before the Court is the Parties' Unopposed Motion For Leave To File Second Amended
Answer And Counterclaims By Sophos Inc. And Sophos Ltd.
4
Accordingly, having reviewed the documents submitted, the record and applicable law,
5
and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion For Leave is
6
GRANTED.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED
10/10/14
UNIT
ED
Dated:
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
dward
Judge E
NO
13
O
IT IS S
RT
14
ER
H
15
n
M. Che
16
FO
12
R NIA
Hon. Edward M. Chen
D
United States DistrictDEREJudge
OR Court
11
LI
10
S
9
A
8
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN DI EGO
-5WEST\251 000302.1
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-05831-EMC
1
PROPOSED ORDER
2
Pursuant to the above Stipulation and Agreement concerning Sophos's Eighth Affirmative
3
Defense and Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims of Inequitable Conduct the Motion to Dismiss and
4
Strike Sophos' Counterclaims and Affirmative Defense filed by Fortinet (Doc. No. 72) is hereby
5
DENIED AS MOOT.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10/10/14
UNIT
ED
Dated:
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
RT
13
J
ER
H
14
15
. Chen
ward M
udge Ed
NO
12
O
IT IS S
FO
11
R NIA
Hon. Edward M. Chen
ED
United States District Court Judge
ORDER
10
LI
9
S
8
A
7
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO
-6WEST\251 000302.1
CASENO. 3:13-CV-05831-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?