Technology Licensing Company, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Filing 19

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 12 Stipulation, filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/25/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose. Case Management Statement due by 5/18/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/21/2010. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 John W. Carpenter, Bar No. 221708 john@jwcarpenterlaw.com 33 Los Pinos Nicasio, CA 94946 Telephone: 415-577-0698 Facsimile: 866-410-6248 Attorneys for Plaintiff Technology Licensing Company Inc. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Michael A. Geibelson, Bar No. 179970 MAGeibelson@rkmc.com, Suite 3400 2049 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208 Telephone: 310-552-0130 Facsimile: 310-229-5800 Attorneys for Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. ** E-filed April 21, 2010 ** ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CO. INC., Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant. JUDGE: Hon. Howard R. Lloyd Case No. CV 09-05989 HRL SECOND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2 /// /// /// 81434309.1 SECOND STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 STIPULATION Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, Plaintiff TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CO. INC. ("TLC") and Defendant BEST BUY CO., INC. hereby stipulate to a second continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference in this matter. The Initial Case Management Conference is currently set for April 27, 2010, at 1:30 PM. Plaintiff and Defendant are continuing to attempt to settle this lawsuit. Plaintiff initially mis-identified the name of one of the allegedly infringing products. Plaintiff and Defendant have been conferring, and have now identified Plaintiff's said targeted product on April 13 (two days ago). The parties are currently in the process of exchanging and/or researching information about the allegedly infringing product, manufacturer(s) of that product, and any licenses or other agreements that may affect settlement. The parties agree that a cost-effective approach to this lawsuit is to seek a second continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference to May 25, 2010, at 1:30 PM, or to whatever date and time thereafter as set by the Court. This is the second request for a time modification of the Initial Case Management in this matter. The present requested time modification does not appear to have material effect on the schedule for this case. ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES /// /// /// 81434309.1 -2- SECOND STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that the Initial Case Management Conference in this matter be continued to May 25, 2010, at 1:30 PM, or to whatever date and time thereafter as set by the Court. DATED: April 15, 2010 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ John W. Carpenter John W. Carpenter Attorney for Plaintiff Technology Licensing Company, Inc. ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 81434309.1 DATED: April 15, 2010 ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI LLP By: /s/ Michael A. Geibelson Michael A. Geibelson Attorney for Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES -3- SECOND STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 April 21 DATED: __________, 2010 ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties shall submit a Joint Case Management Statement by May 18, 2010. Hon. Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 81434309.1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES -4- SECOND STIP. AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CMC

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?