Synthes (USA) v. Spinal Kinetics Inc.

Filing 561

STIPULATION AND ORDER 40 Granting a One Week Extension to Reply to Spinal Kinetics' Oppositions to Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motions. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 6/18/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

Download PDF
1 [COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES (U.S.A.)), 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 SPINAL KINETICS, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C-09-01201-RMW (HRL) STIPULATION AND [] ORDER GRANTING A ONE WEEK EXTENSION TO REPLY TO SPINAL KINETICS’ OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS Hearing Date: Hearing Time: Judge: Courtroom: July 13, 2012 9:00 a.m. Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LA1 2467267v.1 Case No. C-09-01201-RMW STIPULATION AND [] ORDER GRANTING ONE WEEK EXTENSION FOR POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEFS 1 On May 21, 2012, Synthes filed three post-trial motions seeking relief pursuant to Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 50(b) and 59. Dkts. 532-534. On June 4, 2012, Spinal Kinetics filed oppositions to all three 3 motions. Dkts. 536-538. Pursuant to L.R. 7-3(c), Synthes’ reply briefs are presently due on June 11, 4 2012. 5 In view of the volume of the briefing and the number of issues to be addressed, Synthes 6 believes that additional time for preparing reply briefs would be helpful and is warranted, and 7 requests a one week extension of the deadline for filing its reply briefs, until June 18, 2012. Spinal 8 Kinetics does not oppose Synthes’ request for a one week extension. 9 The hearing on Synthes’ post-trial motions is presently scheduled for July 13, 2012 (25 days 10 after the proposed deadline for Synthes’ reply briefs), and the parties agree that the requested 11 extension should not affect the hearing date. 12 13 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their counsel, that with the Court’s permission: 15 1. Synthes shall file its reply briefs in support of its post-trial motions by June 18, 2012. 16 2. The July 13, 2012 hearing shall remain on calendar. 17 18 Agreed to and submitted by: SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 19 20 21 Dated: June 6, 2012 By: 22 23 24 /s/ Jeffrey M. Olson Jeffrey M. Olson Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES (U.S.A.)) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 25 26 Dated: June 6, 2012 27 28 Case No. C-09-01201-RMW By: /s/ Ehab M. Samuel Ehab M. Samuel Attorneys for Defendant SPINAL KINETICS, INC. 1 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER GRANTING ONE WEEK EXTENSION FOR POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP JEFFREY M. OLSON (SBN 104074) jolson@sidley.com PAUL H. MEIER (SBN 115999) pmeier@sidley.com SAMUEL N. TIU (SBN 216291) stiu@sidley.com MATTHEW S. JORGENSON (SBN 229131) mjorgenson@sidley.com 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 896-6000 phone (213) 896-6600 fax Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES (U.S.A.)) 7 8 9 10 11 12 James W. Geriak (State Bar No. 32871) geriakj@dicksteinshapiro.com Allan W. Jansen (State Bar No. 81992) jansena@dicksteinshapiro.com Charles A. Kertell (State Bar No. 181214) kertellc@dicksteinshapiro.com Ehab M. Samuel (State Bar No. 228296) samuele@dicksteinshapiro.com Mark Stirrat (State Bar No. 229448) stirratm@dicksteinshapiro.com DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614-7200 Telephone: (310) 772-8300 Facsimile: (310) 772-8317 13 14 15 16 17 Robert W. Dickerson (State Bar No. 89367) dickersonr@dicksteinshapiro.com DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 772-8300 Facsimile: (310) 772-8317 Attorneys for Defendant SPINAL KINETICS, INC. 18 19 20 21 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: , 2012 Honorable Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 Case No. C-09-01201-RMW 2 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER GRANTING ONE WEEK EXTENSION FOR POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEFS

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?