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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 YITAI HU (SBN 248085) yitai.hu@alston.com SEAN P. DEBRUINE (SBN 168071) sean.debruine@alston.com ELIZABETH H. RADER (SBN 184963) elizabeth.rader@alston.com TSAI-YU (APRIL) CHEN (SBN 264523) april.chen@alston.com JANE HAN BU (SBN 240081) jane.bu@alston.com JENNIFER LIU (SBN 268990) celine.liu@alston.com PALANI P. RATHINASAMY (SBN 269852) palani.rathinasamy@alston.com 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)

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?