Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 268

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply / Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing of Elan's Reply Brief in Support of Elan's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Elan Microelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DeBruine, Sean) (Filed on 6/8/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

YITAI HU (SBN 248085)
[e-mail]
SEAN P. DEBRUINE (SBN 168071)
[e-mail]
ELIZABETH H. RADER (SBN 184963)
[e-mail]
TSAI-YU (APRIL) CHEN (SBN 264523)
[e-mail]
JANE HAN BU (SBN 240081)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LIU (SBN 268990)
[e-mail]
PALANI P. RATHINASAMY (SBN 269852)
[e-mail]
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150
Menlo Park, CA 94025-4008
Telephone:
650-838-2000
Facsimile:
650-838-2001
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17
18
19

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23
24

v.

Case No. 09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)
MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE
FOR FILING OF ELAN’S REPLY BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF ELAN’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

25
26
27
28
MOT TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF ELAN’S BRIEF
ISO MOT FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case No. 09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, Plaintiff Elan Microelectronics Corp. (“Elan”) hereby

1
2

moves to enlarge the time for filing of its Reply brief in support of its Motion for Partial Summary

3

Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352. [Dkt. No. 212]. On May 19, 2011 the

4

parties filed a Stipulation requesting that Elan’s motion be heard on June 20, 2011. [Dkt. No.

5

205]. That request arose from Apple’s demand that it take the deposition of Elan’s expert

6

deponent prior to filing its Opposition. Elan agreed to promptly make its expert available, and his

7

deposition was scheduled, at Apple’s convenience, for May 24, 2011. Elan agreed that Apple

8

would have more than one week from that deposition, to June 2, 2011, to prepare and file its

9

Opposition. Consistent with the request for a hearing on June 20 (a date again chosen for Apple’s

10

convenience), the Stipulation called for the filing of Elan’s Reply on June 9, 2011. On May 25,

11

2011 the Court ruled order on the parties’ stipulation. [Dkt. No. 218]. The Court set a hearing for

12

July 14, 2011, rather than the June 20 date that was requested, but left the filing dates unchanged

13

[Id.]
Late on June 2, Elan received notice that Apple had filed its Opposition and supporting

14
15

declarations. Included was a 158 paragraph declaration from Apple’s expert witness, Dr.

16

Balakrishnan. After careful consideration of that declaration and how Elan could most effectively

17

rebut the numerous errors and inconsistencies therein, Elan concluded that it is necessary to take

18

the deposition of Dr. Balakrishnan. In order to make that deposition useful to the Court, the filing

19

of Elan’s Reply should be delayed until after the deposition is complete the deposition and the

20

transcript can be prepared. The requested extension will not prejudice either Apple or the Court.

21

According to Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), a Reply in support of a motion is normally to be filed 14

22

days prior to the hearing. Elan requests that it have until June 30, 2011 to file its Reply in support

23

of its motion.1

24

Elan states that it exchanged email correspondence with counsel for Apple to obtain a

25

stipulation for this extension. Apple stated that it would oppose this motion, but that it would

26

consider making Dr. Balakrishnan available for a deposition. Clearly providing the deposition

27
28

1

This request is premised on the assumption that Apple will make Dr. Balakrishnan available
for his deposition prior to June 24, 2011.
MOT TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF ELAN’S BRIEF
ISO MOT FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Case No. 09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)

1

after Elan files its Reply brief is not an adequate proposal, and Elan is forced to bring this motion.

2

The Court has previously: rescheduled the initial Case Management Conference from

3

August 12, 2009 to August 26, 2009 [Dkt. No. 46]; granted Apple’s request to Extend Claim

4

Construction Briefing and Markman Hearing [Dkt. No. 72]; granted Elan’s Motion to Enlarge

5

Claim Construction Briefing Deadlines [Dkt. No. 77] and granted Apple’s motion to shorten time

6

for Elan to respond to its Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 115] and set the hearing date for the Elan’s

7

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as set forth above [Dkt. No. 218]. The requested brief

8

extension would have not affect the schedule of the hearing on Elan’s Motion for Summary

9

Judgment and would have no effect on the remaining schedule in this case.

10

DATED: June 8, 2011

11

Respectfully submitted,
ALSTON & BIRD LLP

12
By:

13
14
15

LEGAL02/32678426v1

/s/ Sean P. DeBruine
Sean P. DeBruine

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOT TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF ELAN’S BRIEF
ISO MOT FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2

Case No. 09-cv-01531 RS (PSG)