Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER GRANTING 53 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FORTINET, INC. TO OPPOSE NETSKOPE, INC.'S MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on 11/28/2022. (vla, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2022)

1

13

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
David A. Nelson (Illinois State Bar No. 6209623;
pro hac vice application forthcoming)
[e-mail]
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Sean S. Pak (Bar No. 219032)
[e-mail]
Andrew M. Holmes (Bar No. 260475)
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Tigran Guledjian (Bar No. 207613)
[e-mail]
Jordan B. Kaericher (Bar No. 265953)
[e-mail]
865 South Figueroa Street, 10 th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14

Attorneys for Defendant Fortinet, Inc

10

Thomas N. Millikan, Bar No. 234430
[e-mail]
Joseph P. Reid, Bar No. 211082
[e-mail]
PERKINS COIE LLP
11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 858.720.5799
Andrew N. Klein, Bar No. 300221
[e-mail]
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.838.4350

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff Netskope, Inc.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

12

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19
20

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Plaintiff and Counterclaimdefendant,

21
22

Case No. 3:22-cv-01852-TLT

NETSKOPE, INC.,

v.

23 FORTINET, INC.,
24
25

STIPULATION REQUESTING
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FORTINET,
INC. TO OPPOSE NETSKOPE, INC.’S
MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING
INTER PARTES REVIEW

Defendant and Counterclaimplaintiff.

26
27
28
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTION TO STAY
CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01852-TLT

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Netskope, Inc.

2 (“Netskope”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”), by and through their
3 attorneys, stipulate to a 4-day extension for Fortinet to oppose Netskope’s Motion to Stay Case
4 Pending Inter Partes Review. The parties declare the following in support of the extension:
5

WHEREAS, Netskope filed its Motion to Stay Case Pending Inter Partes Review (the

6 “Motion”) on November 17, 2022;
7

WHEREAS, Fortinet’s opposition to the Motion is due December 1, 2022;

8

WHEREAS, Fortinet has requested a 4-day extension of time to oppose the Motion;

9

WHEREAS, Netskope has agreed to the request for extension;

10

WHEREAS, the requested extension will not change any event or deadline currently set by the

11 Court;
12

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties that

13 Netskope shall have until December 5, 2022 to oppose Netskope’s Motion.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTION TO STAY
CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01852-TLT

1 DATED: November 23, 2022

By: /s/ Joseph P. Reid
Joseph P. Reid
[e-mail] Thomas N. Millikan
[e-mail]
Andrew N. Klein
[e-mail]
Perkins Coie LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Netskope, Inc.

2
3
4
5
6

DATED: November 23, 2022

By: /s/ Tigran Guledjian
Tigran Guledjian
[e-mail]
Andrew M. Holmes
[e-mail]
Jordan B. Kaericher
[e-mail]
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Fortinet, Inc.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15 DATED:

November 28, 2022

Hon.
Ho
on. Trina
Trina
naa L
L.. Th
T
Thompson
hom
o psson
o
U.S. District Court Judge.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTION TO STAY
CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01852-TLT