Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

Filing 189

STIPULATION AND ORDER 186 Extending Time for Halo Electronics, Inc. to Respond to Elec & Eltek and Wurth Electronics's Answer and Counterclaim to Halo's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 5/6/10. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Juanita Brooks (CA#75934 / [e-mail]) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Limin Zheng (CA #226875 / [e-mail]) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] *E-FILED - 5/6/10*

Michael J. Kane (Admitted pro hac vice / [e-mail]) William R. Woodford (Admitted pro hac vice / [e-mail]) Michael J. Pape (Admitted pro hac vice / [e-mail]) John C. Adkisson (Admitted pro hac vice / [e-mail]) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 3200 RBC Plaza 60 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION) HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. BEL FUSE INC., E & E MAGNETIC PRODUCTS LIMITED, ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION, WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC., WURTH ELEKTRONIK GMBH & CO. KG, and XFMRS, INC., Defendants Civil Case No. 07-6222 RMW STIPULATION AND [] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. TO RESPOND TO ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION AND WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 168, 170)

STIPULATION AND [ ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. TO RESPOND TO ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION AND WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 168, 170) Case No. 07-6222 RMW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On April 21, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. ("Halo") and Defendants Elec & Eltek (USA) Corporation ("E&E (USA)") and Wurth Electronics Midcom, Inc. ("Midcom")'s stipulation and request to extend the time for Halo to respond to E&E (USA) and Midcom's respective Answers and Counterclaims to Halo's First Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 168 and 170, respectively) from April 19, 2010 until, and including May 3, 2010, to provide the parties an opportunity to meet and confer on Halo's motion to strike the inequitable conduct allegations in E&E (USA) and Midcom's Answers, which Halo currently intends to file with its Answers to E&E (USA) and Midcom's Counterclaims. (Doc. No. 179) The parties met and conferred telephonically on April 23, 2010. Following the meet and confer, counsel for E&E (USA) advised that although E&E (USA) disagrees that the affirmative defenses were deficient, it was willing to amend, and would be able to send counsel for Halo a proposed amended answer by May 11, 2010. To allow the parties sufficient time to further meet and confer, Halo, E&E (USA), and Midcom, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and respectfully propose the following: 1. E&E (USA) and Midcom shall provide to Halo a copy of proposed Amended Answers no later than May 11, 2010; 2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding E&E (USA) and Midcom's proposed amendment no later than May 13, 2010; 3. E&E (USA) and Midcom shall advise Halo of their decision as to whether they will amend their Answers no later than May 14, 2010; 4. If E&E (USA) and Midcom intend to amend their Answers, they shall do so no later than May 17, 2010; 5. Otherwise, Halo shall file its response to E&E (USA) and Midcom's respective Answers and Counterclaims to Halo's First Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 168 and 170) no later than May 17, 2010. 1
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. TO RESPOND TO ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION AND WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 168, 170) Case No. 07-6222 RMW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The parties do not believe that the proposed extension of time will alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court Order. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 3, 2010

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Michael J. Kane Michael J. Kane Attorneys for Plaintiff HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. Dated: May 3, 2010 BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.

By: /s/ Michael J. Powell Michael J. Powell Attorneys for Defendant ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION

Dated: May 3, 2010

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By: /s/ Neal Seth Neal Seth Attorneys for Defendant WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. TO RESPOND TO ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION AND WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 168, 170) Case No. 07-6222 RMW

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5/6/10 Dated: ___________________

__________________________________ HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. TO RESPOND TO ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION AND WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 168, 170) Case No. 07-6222 RMW

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to the Northern District of California Electronic Filing Procedures and General Order No. 45, I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories listed above.

Dated:

May 3, 2010

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ Limin Zheng__________________ Limin Zheng Attorney for Plaintiff HALO, INC.

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. TO RESPOND TO ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION AND WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 168, 170) Case No. 07-6222 RMW

4