MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Filing
59
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT re 58 Stipulation, filed by MasterObjects, Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/29/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SPENCER HOSIE (SBN 101777)
shosie@hosielaw.com
GEORGE F. BISHOP (SBN 89205)
gbishop@hosielaw.com
DIANE S. RICE (SBN 118303)
drice@hosielaw.com
WILLIAM P. NELSON (SBN 196091)
wnelson@hosielaw.com
HOSIE RICE LLP
600 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 941111
(415) 247-6000 Tel.
(415) 247-6001 Fax
TERRENCE P. McMAHON (SBN 71910)
tmcmahon@mwe.com
VERA M. ELSON (SBN 156327)
velson@mwe.com
VANESSA LEFORT (SBN 260687)
vlefort@mwe.com
McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 94024-4004
(650) 815-7415 Tel.
(650) 815-7401 Fax
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 MASTEROBJECTS, INC.
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
13
14
15
MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
16
Case No. CV 11-1054 PJH
Plaintiff,
17
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
18
19
20
21
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
22
23
24
Plaintiff MasterObjects, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Google Inc. (“Defendant”),
25 hereby stipulate through their respective counsel of record as follows:
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
Case No. CV 11-1054 PJH
WHEREAS, on or about March 7, 2011, Plaintiff served its Original Complaint upon
1
2 Defendant; Plaintiff’s Original Complaint alleges counts for patent infringement, including
3 direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement;
4
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on June 10, 2011;
5
6
WHEREAS, at the September 22, 2011 Status Conference, the parties discussed the
circumstances under which MasterObject’s newly allowed patent application would be
7
8
asserted in this action;
WHEREAS, U.S. Patent No. 8,060,639 issued to MasterObjects on November 15,
9
10 2011;
11
WHEREAS, Plaintiff intends to seek leave to file its Second Amended Complaint,
12 whereby Plaintiff no longer alleges (and hereby withdraws its earlier allegations) that
13
Defendant infringes under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 (b) or (c).
14
WHEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES HERETO that
15
16
Plaintiff may seek leave from the Court to file its Second Amended Complaint, attached
17 hereto as Exhibit 1, and Defendant will not oppose. Plaintiff and Defendant, through their
18 respective counsel of record, have agreed to this filing.
19
20 Dated: November 22, 2011
21
HOSIE RICE LLP
22
By: /s/ _William P. Nelson___________
William P. Nelson
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MasterObjects, Inc.
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
Case No. CV 11-1054 PJH
McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
1
2
3
By: _/s/ _Vera M. Elson_______
Vera M. Elson
Attorneys for Defendant
Google Inc.
4
5
6
I hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence in the electronic
7
8
filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.
9 Dated: November 22, 2011
10
11
/s/ William P. Nelson___
William P. Nelson
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
3
Case No. CV 11-1054 PJH
1
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS ORDERED THAT
2
Leave to file Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
S DISTRIC
yllis J.
udge Ph
NO
8
RT
9
J
ER
H
10
11
R NIA
7
DERED
O OR
IT IS S
n
Hamilto
FO
6
LI
UNIT
ED
5
RT
U
O
TC
_____________________________________
TE
TA J. Hamilton
Honorable Phyllis
U.S. District Court Judge
A
4
29
Dated: November __, 2011
S
3
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
4
Case No. CV 11-1054 PJH
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?