Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Fortinet, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER, Motions terminated: 35 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Reschedule Case Management Conference filed by ChriMar Systems Inc, ChriMar Holding Company LLC. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/22/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 3/22/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bruce J. Zabarauskas, SBN. 248601 THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (310) 203-6902 Facsimile: (310) 203-6980 Email: bruce.zabarauskas@tklaw.com Justin S. Cohen (pro hac vice) Richard L. Wynne, Jr. (pro hac vice) THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214)969-1700 Facsimile: (214)969-1751 Email: justin.cohen@tklaw.com Email: richard.wynne@tklaw.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP John M. Neukom (275887) Andrew M. Holmes (260475) 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Email: johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com Email: drewholmes@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Defendant Fortinet, Inc. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00897-SI Plaintiffs, 16 17 vs. 18 FORTINET, INC., 19 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 In accordance with Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Chrimar Systems, Inc. and Chrimar Holding Company (collectively, “Chrimar”) and Defendant Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: On July 1, 2015, Chrimar filed suit against various defendants in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012, 8,942,107, 8,902,760, and 9,019,838 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Four of the cases have been transferred to the Northern District of California, and are 28 -1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00897-SI 1 presently before this Court: Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:16- 2 cv-00558-SI (N.D. Cal.); Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv- 3 186-SI (N.D. Cal.); Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. NETGEAR, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-624-SI 4 (N.D. Cal.); Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00897-SI (N.D. Cal.) 5 (collectively, the “N.D. Cal. Chrimar Cases”). 6 The Court has set the four N.D. Cal. Chrimar cases for case management conferences 7 (“CMCs”) on four separate dates: April 15, 2016 (Case No. -897); April 22, 2016 (Case No. 186); 8 May 6, 2016 (Case No. -558); and May 20, 2016 (Case No. -624). 9 Counsel for the parties in all of the N.D. Cal. Chrimar Cases have conferred and believe 10 that there would be benefits to the Court and the parties to schedule the CMCs for all of the cases 11 scheduled on the same date, and at the Court’s convenience, at the same time if possible. 12 Counsel for the parties in all of the N.D. Cal. Chrimar Cases are available for CMC on 13 April 22, 2016, which is the date the Court had set the CMC for the Chrimar v. Ruckus case (No. 14 3:16-cv-186). Accordingly, if the Court’s schedule permits, counsel for the parties in this action 15 have agreed to reschedule the CMC currently set for April 15, 2016, to April 22, 2016, at or near 16 2:30 p.m., when the Ruckus CMC is currently scheduled. 17 18 No prior changes to the schedule have been made since this action was transferred to this Court. 19 Because the Court has not entered a Scheduling Order in any of the four N.D. Cal. 20 Chrimar Cases, the requested time modification will have no effect on the schedule for this or any 21 of the cases. 22 IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED, that the CMC in this case shall be 23 rescheduled to April 22, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. and the related deadline for filing a joint CMC 24 statement is adjusted to April 15, 2016. 25 26 27 28 -2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00897-SI 1 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 2 /s/ Richard L. Wynne, Jr. Richard L. Wynne, Jr. Thompson & Knight LLP /s/ John M. Neukom w/permission R. Wynne John M. Neukom (275887) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendant Fortinet, Inc. 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 28 -3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00897-SI 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 Case No. 3:16-cv-00897-SI 3 4 STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF DALLAS 6 I am employed in the County of Dallas, State of Texas. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500, Dallas, Texas 75201. On April 21, 2015, I served documents described as follows: 7 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Reschedule Case Management Conference 5 8 9 10 11 I served the document listed above on the interested parties below, using the following means: [X] (By Court’s CM/ECF System) Pursuant to Local Rule, I electronically filed the documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of that filing to the persons listed on the CM/ECF service list. 12 13 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 18, 2016, at Dallas, Texas. 15 16 17 /s/ Richard L. Wynne, Jr. Richard L. Wynne, Jr. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00897-SI 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 March 22 Dated: __________, 2016 THE HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00897-SI

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?