Intel Corporation v. Tela Innovations, Inc.

Filing 99

ORDER granting 98 STIPULATION for Extension of Time. Reply due by 2/13/2019 re 90 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/08/2019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Adam R. Alper (CA Bar No. 196834)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94194
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Thomas F. Fitzpatrick (State Bar No. 193565)
Andy H. Chan (State Bar No. 242660)
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400
Redwood City, California 94065-1434
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Michael W. De Vries (CA Bar No. 211011)
Christopher M. Lawless (CA Bar No. 268952)
Kevin Bendix (CA Bar No. 285295)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

William D. Belanger (Admitted pro hac vice)
Anthony H. Cataldo (Admitted pro hac vice)
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
125 High Street, 19th Floor,
High Street Tower
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Gregory S. Arovas (pro hac vice)
Todd M. Friedman (pro hac vice)
Alex R. Henriques (pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant
TELA INNOVATIONS, INC.

17
18

Attorneys for Plaintiff
INTEL CORPORATION

19

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20
21
22

INTEL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

23
24
25
26

v.
TELA INNOVATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 18-cv-02848-WHO
STIPULATED REQUEST AND
ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE INTEL’S REPLY
SUPPORTING ITS MOTION TO
DISMISS

27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME

1

CASE NO. 18-CV-02848-WHO

1

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiff Intel Corporation (“Intel”) submits this Stipulated

2

Request and [Proposed] Order for Extension of Time to File Intel’s Reply Supporting its Motion to

3

Dismiss.

4

On January 18, 2019, Intel filed a Motion to Dismiss Certain Counterclaims and Affirmative

5

Defenses. (Dkt. 90). On February 1, 2019, Tela filed its Opposition. (Dkt. 96). In its opposition

6

brief, Tela states that it will file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims. (Id. at 1). This will moot

7

Intel’s motion to dismiss as a procedural matter, thus eliminating the need for Intel to file a Reply at

8

this time. See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015).

9

The deadline for Tela to amend its Answer and Counterclaims without leave, on February 8,

10

2019, is the same as the deadline for Intel to file its Reply. Tela has confirmed that it will amend its

11

Answer and Counterclaims on February 8, 2019, as it stated in its Opposition to Intel’s Motion to

12

Dismiss. When Tela amends, Intel will withdraw its Motion to Dismiss without prejudice (for

13

potential re-filing after reviewing Tela’s amendments) and will not file a Reply at this time. Intel has

14

requested that Tela agree to stipulate to an extension of time for Intel’s Reply in order to provide Intel

15

with assurance that if Tela were not to amend its Answer and Counterclaims, Intel would still have

16

time to file a Reply in support of its Motion. In the event that Tela were to change its plans and refrain

17

from amending, Intel would not know this until the same day that Intel’s Reply is currently due. Intel

18

therefore requests a short extension of time for its Reply until February 13, 2019, so that Intel can

19

prepare its briefing if Tela does not amend on February 8, 2019.

20

To date, the following time modifications have been made in this case: i) the parties’ stipulation

21

to extend Tela’s time to respond to Intel’s initial Complaint from June 7, 2018 to July 9, 2018 (Dkt.

22

No. 24), ii) the parties’ stipulation to a new date for the initial Case Management Conference

23

requesting an extension from August 14, 2018 to September 4, 2018 in order to accommodate the

24

schedule of Intel’s trial counsel (Dkt. No. 25); iii) the parties’ stipulation to extend Tela’s deadline to

25

respond to Intel’s First Amended Complaint from November 19, 2018 to December 19, 2018 and

26

Intel’s deadline to respond to any counterclaims asserted by Tela to January 18, 2019, and iv) the

27

parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for submitting a proposed Protective Order from December

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME

2

CASE NO. 18-CV-02848-WHO

1

10, 2018 to December 12, 2018. The parties do not expect the modification of time proposed in this

2

stipulation to have any effect on other scheduled dates in the case.

3

The parties therefore stipulate, subject to Court approval, to an extension of time to February

4

13, 2019 (from the current deadline of February 8, 2019) for Intel to file its Reply brief.

5

IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME

3

CASE NO. 18-CV-02848-WHO

1

DATED: February 7, 2019

2

By: /s/ Todd M. Friedman

3

Adam R. Alper (CA Bar No. 196834)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94194
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Respectfully submitted,
_

By: /s/ Thomas F. Fitzpatrick

_

Thomas F. Fitzpatrick (State Bar No. 193565)
Andy H. Chan (State Bar No. 242660)
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400
Redwood City, California 94065-1434
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Michael W. De Vries (CA Bar No. 211011)
Christopher M. Lawless (CA Bar No. 268952)
Kevin Bendix (CA Bar No. 285295)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

William D. Belanger (Admitted pro hac vice)
Anthony H. Cataldo (Admitted pro hac vice)
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
125 High Street, 19th Floor,
High Street Tower
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Gregory S. Arovas (pro hac vice)
Todd M. Friedman (pro hac vice)
Alex R. Henriques (pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant
TELA INNOVATIONS, INC.

Nyika O. Strickland (pro hac vice)
David Rokach (pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME

4

CASE NO. 18-CV-02848-WHO

1
2
3
4
5
6

Lien K. Dang (CA Bar No. 254221)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
3330 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
INTEL CORPORATION

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME

5

CASE NO. 18-CV-02848-WHO

1
2
3

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from the other signatories.

4
5

DATED: February 7, 2019

6
7
8
9
10

/s/ Todd M. Friedman
Todd M. Friedman (pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff
INTEL CORPORATION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME

6

CASE NO. 18-CV-02848-WHO

1

ORDER ON STIPULATED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION

2

The above Stipulated Request for Extension of Time to Submit Intel’s Reply in Support of its
Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

3
4

IT IS ORDERED.
5
6

Dated:_February 8, 2019
The Hon. William H. Orrick
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME

7

CASE NO. 18-CV-02848-WHO