Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
Filing
36
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 35 TO STAY ACTION filed by Realtime Data LLC. Case stayed. Case Management Statement due by 11/22/2017. Initial Case Management Conference reset from 9/7/2017 to 11/30/2017 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/22/17. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
11
12
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067) Lead Attorney
Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
Email: bledahl@raklaw.com
Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
Email: pkroeger@raklaw.com
C. Jay Chung (CA SBN 252794)
Email: jchung@raklaw.com
Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
Email: pwang@raklaw.com
Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)
Email: cconkle@raklaw.com
James N. Pickens (CA SBN 307474)
Email: jpickens@raklaw.com
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 826-7474
Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
Attorneys for Defendant
REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
18
Plaintiff,
19
vs.
20
Case No. 3:17-cv-3182 EMC
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
ACTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
21
Defendant.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
Plaintiff Riverbed Technology, Inc. (“Riverbed”) and Defendant Realtime Data, LLC
2
d/b/a IXO (“Realtime”), by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate to stay this action. This
3
stipulation is based on the following facts:
4
1.
On April 3, 2017, Realtime filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas,
5
Tyler Division, Case No. 6:17-cv-198, (“the Texas Action”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent
6
Nos. 8,719,438 (the “’438 Patent”) and 8,717,204 (the “’204 Patent”).
7
8
9
2.
On June 2, 2017, Riverbed filed its Complaint in this action seeking declaratory
relief of non-infringement of the ’438 and ’204 Patents (“the California Action”).
3.
On July 14, 2017, Riverbed filed a motion to dismiss Realtime’s Complaint in the
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
Eastern District of Texas action for improper venue or in the alternative, to transfer. In the
11
motion, Riverbed asserts that venue in the Eastern District of Texas is improper under 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 1400(b) pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland, among other things.
13
Briefing on this motion is due to be complete on August 24, 2017.
14
4.
On August 4, 2017, Realtime filed a motion to dismiss Riverbed’s complaint in
15
this action under the first-to-file rule in light of Realtime’s earlier complaint in the Eastern
16
District of Texas. Realtime also seeks to dismiss the Riverbed’s complaint for lack of personal
17
jurisdiction.
18
5.
The parties agree that a stay of this action pending resolution of Riverbed’s
19
motion to dismiss or transfer in the Texas Action is acceptable and would conserve judicial
20
resources.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, the parties hereby STIPULATE AND JOINTLY REQUEST THAT THE
COURT ORDER as follows:
1.
This action is stayed pending resolution of Riverbed’s motion to dismiss
Realtime’s Complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:17-cv-198, Docket 27.
2.
This stipulation does not prejudice either party’s future right to seek any
appropriate relief either in the California Action or the Texas Action.
3.
Realtime can renew its motion to dismiss Riverbed’s complaint in this action
within 14 days of a final ruling on Riverbed’s motion to dismiss.
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
3.
The parties will provide the Court with a status report every 90 days until a final
2
ruling on Riverbed’s motion is issued. Upon a final ruling on Riverbed’s motion in the Texas
3
Action, the parties will provide the Court a status report within 10 days.
4
Respectfully submitted,
5
6
7
8
9
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: August 22, 2017
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
By:/s/ Paul A. Kroeger
Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
Email: bledahl@raklaw.com
Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
Email: pkroeger@raklaw.com
C. Jay Chung (CA SBN 252794)
Email: jchung@raklaw.com
Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
Email: pwang@raklaw.com
Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)
Email: cconkle@raklaw.com
James N. Pickens (CA SBN 307474)
Email: jpickens@raklaw.com
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: 310/826-7474
Facsimile 310/826-6991
Attorneys for Defendant
REALTIME DATA, LLC
/s/ Matthew P. Chiarizio
John Russell Emerson
(TX Bar No. 24002053) Pro hac vice
russ.emerson@haynesboone.com
Stephanie N. Sivinski
(TX Bar No. 24075080) Pro hac vice
stephanie.sivinski@haynesboone.com
Matthew P. Chiarizio
(TX Bar No. 24087294) Pro hac vice
matthew.chiarizio@haynesboone.com
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75219
Phone: (214) 651-5000
2
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Fax: (214) 200-0615
1
Jennifer M. Lantz
(CA Bar No. 202252)
jennifer.lantz@haynesboone.com
Nicholas V. Martini
(CA Bar No. 237687)
nick.martini@haynesboone.com
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 400
Palo Alto, California 94301
Phone: (650) 687-8800
Fax: (650) 687-8801
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.
11
12
________________________________
Honorable Edward M. Chen
D
United States District Court RDERE
O O Judge
S
8/22/17
_________________________________
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
18
IT IS S
IFIED
S MOD
A
RT
dwar
Judge E
ER
H
20
21
22
en
d M. Ch
NO
19
R NIA
17
filed by 11/22/17.
A
16
Dated:
A joint CMC statement shall be
FO
at 9:30 a.m.
14
15
The CMC is reset from 9/7/17 to 11/30/17
LI
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNIT
ED
13
RT
U
O
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
C
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?