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)
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?