Centrify Corporation v. Quest Software, Inc.

Filing 126

ORDER Granting (125 in 4:10-cv-03873-CW), (30 in 4:11-cv-04675-CW) Stipulation for Order Staying Litigation. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/23/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2011)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

OAKLAND DIVISION

4
Centrify Corporation,
5
6

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.

7
Quest Software, Inc.,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
Centrify Corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.
Quest Software, Inc.,
Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:10-cv-3873-CW (filed Aug. 30, 2010)

No. 4:11-cv-4675-CW (filed Sept. 20, 2011)
(related case)

15

STIPULATED ORDER STAYING LITIGATION

16
17
18

To promote efficiency for the Parties and Court, Quest Software, Inc. and Centrify

19

Corporation hereby agree and stipulate that Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-3873-CW and Civil Action

20

No. 4:11-cv-4675-CW shall be stayed effective immediately; and

21
22

The stay in each case will remain in effect during the period that begins upon the entry of
this Stipulation by the Court and ends ninety (90) days after the earlier of:

23

1. The Conclusion of Reexamination-Related Appeals in Both Reexaminations: Decision

24

of all reexamination-related appeals by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

25

in Application No. 95/001,458 (concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,617,501) and

26

Application No. 95/001,434 (concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,591,005); or

27
28

2.

The Conclusion of Reexamination-Related Appeal in Either Reexamination:

appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are taken in one, but not both

COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

If

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

of Application No. 95/001,458 and Application No. 95/001,434, decision of all
reexamination-related appeals by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in the
appealed case; or
3. The Deadline to File an Appeal When None Filed in Either Case: The deadline for the
Parties to file appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences passing in both
Application No. 95/001,458 and Application No. 95/001,434 without an appeal being
timely filed in either case.

8
9

Dated: December 22, 2011

10
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

COOLEY LLP

13

/s/ Ryan Sandrock

/s/ Orion Armon

14

Ryan Sandrock
Attorneys for Centrify Corp.

Orion Armon
Attorneys for Quest Software, Inc.

11
12

15
16
17
18
19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED:
12/23/2011
Dated:___________________

20
21
22

The Honorable Claudia Wilken
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

2