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)

Download PDF
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?