Google, Inc. v. Eolas Technologies Inc. et al

Filing 94

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 93 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER / Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time for Google Inc. to Respond To Defendants' Counterclaims filed by Google, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 16, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

JONATHAN K. WALDROP (SBN: 297903)
[e-mail]
DARCY L. JONES (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT P. WATKINS III (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10

JEFFREY J. TONEY (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
1349 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff
GOOGLE INC.

13

COURTLAND L. REICHMAN (SBN: 268873)
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 510
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
KEVIN L. BURGESS (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JOHN B. CAMPBELL (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
J.R. JOHNSON, II (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER A. ALBERT (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JOSHUA W. BUDWIN (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: [phone];
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATED; and THE REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
19
GOOGLE INC.,

Case No. 13-CV-05997-JST

20
Plaintiff,
21
v.
22
23

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
GOOGLE INC. TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA,

24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 13-CV-05997-JST

1
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

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2, 7-12, and 16-2 Plaintiff Google Inc. (“Google”), and
Defendants Eolas Technologies Incorporated (“Eolas”) and The Regents of the University of
California (“the Regents”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby stipulate through their respective
counsel of record as follows:
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2014 and January 3, 2014, Google served a complaint seeking
a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,082,293 and 8,086,662
(hereinafter “patents-in-suit”) on Defendants (Dkt. 1);
WHEREAS, Defendants filed an answer and counterclaims on July 8, 2014 (Dkt. 76), and
a corrected answer and counterclaims on July 22, 2014 (Dkt. 83), in which Eolas asserted patent
infringement counterclaims against Google (hereinafter “Counterclaims”);
WHEREAS, Eolas filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 8, 2014 (Dkt. 77) (hereinafter
“Second Motion to Dismiss”), and a Corrected Motion to Dismiss on July 15, 2014 (Dkt. 78)
(hereinafter “Corrected Second Motion to Dismiss”), in which it moved to dismiss with prejudice
Eolas’s Counterclaims of infringement of the patents-in-suit, and to dismiss without prejudice
Google’s declaratory judgment claims of non-infringement;
WHEREAS, the Regents filed a notice of joinder in Eolas’s Corrected Second Motion to
Dismiss on July 29, 2014 (Dkt. 84);
WHEREAS, Google’s responded to Defendants’ Corrected Second Motion to Dismiss on
August 19, 2014 (Dkt. 87);
WHEREAS, Eolas filed a Reply to its Corrected Second Motion to Dismiss on September
9, 2014 (Dkt. 88) and a Corrected Reply on September 12, 2014 (Dkt. 89);
WHEREAS, Google sought leave to file a sur-reply to Eolas’s Corrected Second Motion
to Dismiss on September 18, 2014 (Dkt. 90);
WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Response to Google’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply on September 22, 2014 (Dkt. 91);
WHEREAS, the Court vacated the hearing on the Corrected Second Motion to Dismiss on
September 30, 2014 (Dkt. 92);

28
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

-1-

CASE NO. 13-CV-05997-JST

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WHEREAS, Google’s response to Eolas’ Counterclaims is currently due October 24,
2014;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the lawsuit should be dismissed in its entirety
and absent an extension, the parties will expend additional time and resources on a lawsuit that
may be dismissed;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend Google’s deadline to respond to Eolas’s
Counterclaims by three weeks in order to allow the Court to rule on the dismissal of the litigation;
WHEREAS, good cause exists to extend the current deadline for Google’s response to
Eolas’s Counterclaims, to allow the Court to rule on Eolas’s pending Corrected Second Motion to
Dismiss and to avoid the expenditure of time and resources until the scope of dismissal is
determined;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties through their undersigned counsel hereby stipulate and
request that the Court grant, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 that:


The time for Google to respond to Defendants’ Counterclaims be extended until
November 14, 2014.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

-2-

CASE NO. 13-CV-05997-JST

1

Dated: October 15, 2014

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

2
By: /s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop________
JONATHAN K. WALDROP
(SBN: 297903)
[e-mail]
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES
& FRIEDMAN LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiff
GOOGLE INC., INC.

9
10

MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.

Dated: October 15, 2014
11

By: /s/ J.R. Johnson, II________
JOHN B. CAMPBELL (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
J.R. JOHNSON, II (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER A. ALBERT (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JOSHUA W. BUDWIN (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: [phone];
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Attorneys for Defendants
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATED;
and THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

-3-

CASE NO. 13-CV-05997-JST

1
2

I hereby attest pursuant to L.R. 5.1(i)(3) that concurrence in the electronic filing of this
document has been obtained from the other signatories.

3
4

Dated: October 15, 2014

_/s/ Robert P. Watkins III__________________
Robert P. Watkins III

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

-4-

CASE NO. 13-CV-05997-JST

1

3
4
5

[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Court having considered the stipulation of the parties, orders as follows:


The time for Google to respond to Defendants’ Counterclaims is extended until
November 14, 2014;

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

S
October 16
Dated: ______________, 2014

9

UNIT
ED

8

RT
U
O

7

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

ED

Honorable O ORTigar
Jon S. DER
IS S District Judge
IT
United States

R NIA

2

10

13

A

H

ER

. Ti ga r

LI

RT

12

nS
J u d ge J o

FO

NO

11

N

14

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

-5-

CASE NO. 13-CV-05997-JST