Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Filing 12

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint re 11 Stipulation. Deadline for response due 12/23/2008. Signed by Judge James Ware on 11/25/2008. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2008) Modified on 12/1/2008 (cv, COURT STAFF).

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

Marc H. Cohen (CA Bar No. 168773) Bradford John Black (CA Bar No. 252031) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 950 Page Mill Road P.O. Box 51827 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION

ER

N

C OF D IS T IC T R 11/25/2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, a Canadian corporation AND RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Civil L.R. 6-1(a), 6-2(a) and 7-12, it is hereby stipulated by and between the parties, through their respective attorneys, that Defendants
Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Complaint - Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-1(A), 6-2(A) AND 7-12 TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN WHICH DEFENDANTS MAY RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AND STIPULATING TO SUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

A

LI

FO

m Judge Ja

es Ware

R NIA

Linda S. DeBruin (IL Bar No. 6201843) (Admitted to this Court on September 27, 1991) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

GRAN

TED

NO

RT

H

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

Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation shall have an additional 29 days, up to and including December 23, 2008, within which to respond to the Complaint. The purpose for the extension of time is to allow the Defendants to duly investigate the Plaintiff's allegations in its Complaint. There have been no prior modifications of time in this case. The present modification will not adversely impact the case schedule as one has not yet been set. Defendants further stipulate and agree that they shall not challenge the sufficiency of service of the summons and complaint.

DATED: November 20, 2008

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Respectfully submitted, /s/Marc H. Cohen Marc H. Cohen Attorney for Defendants Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation

DATED: November 20, 2008

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Respectfully submitted, /s/______________________________________ Nathaniel Bruno Attorney for Plaintiff MFormation Technologies, Inc.

Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, Marc H. Cohen hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 25, 2008 DATED: ___________________________

_____________________________________ Honorable James Ware United States District Court Judge

-2-

Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Complaint - Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW

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 DATED: November 20, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 20th day of November, 2008 that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF system, with notice of case activity automatically generated and sent electronically to all parties.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Respectfully submitted, /s/Sarah M. Schultz Sarah M. Schultz, Intellectual Property Legal Assistant

-3-

Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Complaint - Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW