Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.
Filing
46
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 44 STIPULATED MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'S COMPLAINT. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
MJacobs@mofo.com
ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490)
AGonzalez@mofo.com
ALEXANDRIA A. AMEZCUA (CA SBN 247507)
AAmezcua@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
VMWARE, INC.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., a
Delaware corporation
14
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
16
Case No. 3:15-cv-01414-HSG
VMWARE, INC.’S STIPULATED
MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER
TO PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
LTD’S COMPLAINT, AND
PROPOSED ORDER
VMWARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation
17
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant.
18
Trial Date: Not Yet Set
VMWARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation
19
Defendant/Counterclaimant,
20
v.
21
22
23
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., a
Delaware corporation
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant.
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01414-HSG
sf-3549449
1
STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
2
3
Defendant VMware, Inc. (“VMware”) hereby respectfully requests, pursuant to Federal
4
Rule of Civil Procedure 15, and with the assent of Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies Ltd.
5
(“Plaintiff”), that VMware be allowed to amend its Answer. VMware’s Amended Answer is
6
attached herein as Exhibit A. As grounds for this request, VMware states as follows:
7
1.
The parties have met and conferred and agreed that VMware would add two
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
affirmative defenses: (1) language from Paragraph 2.4 of the 2005 Amendment, and
(2) 17 U.S.C. Section 117;
2.
This is the first request to amend the answer, and is not being made for purposes of
delay or for any other improper purpose;
3.
Plaintiff, through its counsel, has agreed to the request for leave to amend
VMware’s answer based on the representation that the amendment will include only the revisions
15
16
17
noted above.
WHEREFORE, VMware requests that the Court grant its motion for leave to amend its
18
answer.
19
Dated: July 8, 2015
20
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ
ALEXANDRIA A. AMEZCUA
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
21
22
By:
23
/s/ Arturo J. González
Arturo J. González
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
VMWARE, INC.
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01414-HSG
sf-3549449
1
1
So stipulated.
2
COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463)
DREW KONING (263082)
3
4
5
By: /s/ Whitty Somvichian
Whitty Somvichian
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
July 10
Dated: ________, 2015
12
The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.
District Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01414-HSG
sf-3549449
2
1
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
2
I, Arturo J. González, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
3
Declaration. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3) and General Order No. 45, § X.B., I hereby
4
attest that Whitty Somvichian has concurred in this filing.
5
6
Dated:
July 8, 2015
/s/ Arturo J. González
Arturo J. González
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01414-HSG
sf-3549449
3
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?