THX, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 529

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 527 Stipulation Requesting Modification to Briefing Schedule for Apple Inc.'s 524 Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Eric L. Wesenberg, Bar No. 139696 EWesenberg@perkinscoie.com Christopher L. Kelley, Bar No. 166608 CKelley@perkinscoie.com Victoria Q. Smith, Bar No. 236045 VSmith@perkinscoie.com Andrew N. Klein, Bar No. 300221 AKlein@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 Telephone: 650.838.4300 Facsimile: 650.838.4350 David J. Burman (pro hac vice) DBurman@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Mark D. Selwyn, Bar No. 244180 Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Nina S. Tallon (pro hac vice) Nina.Tallon@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc. Kenneth J. Halpern, Bar No. 187663 ken.halpern@strismaher.com STRIS & MAHER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 Attorneys for Plaintiff Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc. 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 OAKLAND DIVISION 21 22 SLOT SPEAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING MODIFICATION TO BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 285 (DKT. 524) Defendant. 27 28 Stipulation and Order Re Briefing for Apple’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. 524) No.: 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 1 Pursuant to L.R. 6-2, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiff Slot 2 Speaker Technologies, Inc. (“SST”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) (collectively, the 3 “Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, as follows: 4 WHEREAS, the Parties request that the briefing schedule for Apple’s Motion for 5 Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Dkt. 524) (“Motion for Attorneys’ Fees”) be 6 extended as follows: 7 8 9 Submission Current Deadline SST’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for April 24, 2018 Attorneys’ Fees Apple’s Reply to SST’s Opposition May 1, 2018 Requested Deadline May 8, 2018 May 22, 2018 10 11 WHEREAS, the Parties’ requested modification to the briefing schedule does not affect 12 any dates currently set by the Court or the July 19, 2018 hearing date on Apple’s Motion for 13 Attorneys’ Fees; 14 WHEREAS, the Parties have previously requested no other modifications to the 15 Scheduling Order, except for their May 10, 2017 request regarding an extension of time to 16 conduct certain depositions, which the Court granted (Dkt. 319); their June 21, 2017 request 17 regarding an extension of time to serve expert reports, which the Court granted (Dkt. 345); their 18 August 31, 2017 request regarding a one-week extension to complete expert discovery, which the 19 Court granted (Dkt. 351); their October 5, 2017 request regarding additional time for briefing 20 Apple’s Motions to Exclude certain of SST’s experts’ opinions, which the Court granted (Dkt. 21 382); their January 22, 2018 request regarding the schedule for briefing of SST’s Motion to 22 Strike, which the Court granted (Dkt. 450); and their February 6, 2018 request regarding 23 modification to the briefing schedule for motions in limine, which the Court granted (Dkt. 456); 24 WHEREAS, the Parties respectfully submit that there is good cause to modify the existing 25 briefing schedule for Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in view of the scope of the issues 26 presented and the requested extension having no effect on any deadlines currently set by the 27 Court or the July 19, 2018 hearing date on Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 28 -1- Stipulation and Order Re Briefing for Apple’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. 524) No.: 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties that, 2 subject to the Court’s approval, SST’s opposition to Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees must be 3 filed by May 8, 2018, and Apple’s reply thereto must be filed by May 22, 2018. 4 The Parties also respectfully request that the Court issue an order granting the relief 5 requested. 6 DATED: April 13, 2018 By: 7 8 Attorney for Plaintiff Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc. 9 10 /s/Eric L. Wesenberg Eric L. Wesenberg PERKINS COIE LLP DATED: April 13, 2018 By: 11 12 /s/Nina S. Tallon Nina S. Tallon Nina.Tallon@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 13 Attorney for Defendant Apple Inc. 14 15 ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURES 16 I, Eric L. Wesenberg, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this 17 18 19 20 21 22 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Requesting Modification to Briefing Schedule for Apple Inc.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Dkt. 524). In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in this filing has been obtained from Nina S. Tallon. Dated: April 13, 2018 /s/Eric L. Wesenberg Eric L. Wesenberg 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- Stipulation and Order Re Briefing for Apple’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. 524) No.: 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 1 2 *** PURSUANT TO STIPULAT TION, SST’s opposition to Apple’s Motion for A s n Attorneys’ 3 Fe (Dkt. 524 must be fi by May 8, 2018 and Apple’s rep thereto m be filed by May 22, ees 4) iled d ply must d , 4 20 018. IT IS SO ORDER S RED. 5 Da ated: April 16, 2018 6 ____ ___________ __________ ___________ ___ Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr . S. r. ed Unite 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 -3- Stipula ation and Order Re Briefing for Apple’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. 524) N 4:13-cv-0116 No.: 61-HSG (DMR)

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?