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)

Download PDF
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?