Iridex Corp. v. Alcon, Inc. et al

Filing 14

STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Request to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint by Not More than 30 Days re 13 Stipulation. Response due 10/28/2011. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/6/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2011)

S

Attorneys for Plaintiff, IRIDEX CORP.

10

IRIDEX CORP., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15

17
18

vila

LI
A
N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

10/6/2011

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

16

ER

rd J . D a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

d wa
J u d ge E

H

7

RT

9

6

NO

8

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Anne M. Rogaski (State Bar No. 184754)
1080 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

5

R NIA

4

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

3

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

2

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
A. James Isbester (State Bar No. 129820)
Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

UNIT
ED

1

ALCON, INC., ALCON LABORATORIES,
INC., ALCON RESEARCH LTD. (all
Delaware corporations) and DOES 1-5,
inclusive,

Case No. CV11-02405 EJD (HRL)
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY
NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS (L.R. 6-1)
Complaint served: September 14, 2011
Current response date: October 5, 2011
New response date: October 28, 2011

Defendants.

19
20
21

It is hereby stipulated by and between Plaintiff, Iridex Corporation (“Iridex”) and

22

Defendants Alcon, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., and Alcon Research Ltd. (“Alcon”) pursuant to

23

Local Rule 6-1 that the time in which Alcon may answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in

24

the above-referenced proceeding shall be extended to and include October 28, 2011.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS
(L.R. 6-1) - CASE NO. CV11-02405 EJD (HRL)

-1-

/s/ Anne M. Rogaski

1

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), regarding signatures, I attest

2

under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from

3

Matt Hayenga.

4
5

DATED: October 3, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

6
7

By: /s/ Anne M. Rogaski
A. JAMES ISBESTER
ANNE M. ROGASKI

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff, IRIDEX CORP.

10
11
12
13
14

63747889 v1

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS
(L.R. 6-1) - CASE NO. CV11-02405 EJD (HRL)

-3-