DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
104
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 103 Stipulation to Extend Time for DSS Technology Management, Inc. to Respond to Apple, Inc.'s 99 Motion to Stay Case Pending Completion of IPR Proceedings. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CHRISTOPHER M. JOE
Texas State Bar No. 00787770
Chris.Joe@BJCIPLaw.com
ERIC W. BUETHER
Texas State Bar No. 03316880
Eric.Buether@BJCIPLaw.com
BRIAN A. CARPENTER
Texas State Bar No. 03840600
Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPLaw.com
MARK D. PERANTIE
Texas State Bar No. 24053647
Mark.Perantie@BJCIPLaw.com
BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
1700 Pacific Avenue
Suite 4750
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 466-1272
Facsimile:
(214) 635-1828
10
11
12
13
14
15
MARC A. FENSTER
State Bar No. 181067
mfenster@raklaw.com
ADAM S. HOFFMAN
State Bar No. 218740
ahoffman@raklaw.com
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 826-7474
Facsimile:
(310) 826-6991
16
17
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DSS Technology Management, Inc.
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
20
DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
21
22
23
24
Plaintiff,
vs.
APPLE, INC.,
CASE NUMBER: 3:14-CV-05330-HSG
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DSS
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
TO RESPOND TO APPLE, INC.’S
MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING
COMPLETION OF IPR PROCEEDINGS
Defendant.
25
26
Plaintiff DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“DSS”) and Defendant Apple, Inc.
27
(“Apple”) hereby submit this stipulation to extend the time for DSS to respond to Apple’s
28
Motion to Stay Case Pending Completion of IPR Proceedings to Monday, March 30, 2015 and to
-1STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND – CASE NO. C 14-05330 HSG
1
extend the time for Apple to file its reply in support of its Motion to Stay Case Pending
2
Completion of IPR Proceedings to Friday, April 10, 2015.
3
WHEREAS, DSS and Apple have agreed to extend the time for DSS to file its response
4
to Apple’s Motion to Stay Case Pending Completion of IPR Proceedings to Monday, March 30,
5
2015 and have also agreed to extend the time for Apple to file its reply in support of its Motion
6
to Stay Case Pending Completion of IPR Proceedings to Friday, April 10, 2015,
7
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between DSS and Apple that the date for DSS to
8
file its response to Apple’s Motion to Stay Case Pending Completion of IPR Proceedings,
9
currently March 27, 2015, will be continued to March 30, 2015.
10
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED by and between DSS and Apple that the date for Apple
11
to file its reply in support of its Motion to Stay Case Pending Completion of IPR Proceedings
12
will be extended to April 10, 2015.
13
DATED: March 27, 2015
14
BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
15
By:
16
17
18
/s/ Christopher M. Joe
Christopher M. Joe
Eric W. Buether
Brian A. Carpenter
Mark D. Perantie
Marc A. Fenster
Adam S. Hoffman
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DSS Technology Management, Inc.
20
21
22
23
24
ATTESTATION
I hereby attest that all other signatories listed concur in the content and have authorized
this filing.
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND – CASE NO. C 14-05330 HSG
1
2
ORDER
3
Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DSS Technology
4
Management, Inc.’s response to Apple, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Case Pending Completion of IPR
5
Proceedings is due on Monday, March 30, 2015.
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Apple, Inc.’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Stay
7
Case Pending Completion of IPR Proceedings is due on Friday, April 10, 2015. The Court will
8
not grant any further extensions of time in relation to the Motion to Stay briefing schedule.
9
10
Date:
3/30/2015
By:
HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND – CASE NO. C 14-05330 HSG
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?