A10 Networks Inc v. Brocade Communications Systems Inc et al

Filing 78

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 76 Stipulation.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2012)

__________________________________________

Case5:11-cv-05493-LHK Document76 Filed04/17/12 Page1 of 3

1

2

FABIO E. MARINO (STATE BAR NO. 183825)
[e-mail]

4

NITIN GAMBHIR (STATE BAR NO. 259906)
ngambhirorrick.com
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100
Menlo Park, California 94025

5

Telephone:
Facsimile:

3

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

650.815.7400
650.815.7401

DENISE MINGRONE (STATE BAR NO. 135224)
dmingroneorrick.com
BAS DE BLANK (STATE BAR NO. 191487)
[e-mail]
SIDDHARTHA VENKATESAN (STATE BAR NO. 245008)
[e-mail]
CHRISTINA VON DER ARE (STATE BAR NO. 255467)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone:
650-614-7400
Facsimile:
650-614-7401
Attorneys for Defendant
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17

SAN JOSE DIVISION
18
19

AlO NETWORKS, INC., a California
corporation,

20
Plaintiff,
21
V.

22
23
24

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS, NC., a Delaware corporation,

Case No.: 1 1-cv-05493 LHK

STIPULATION RE DEFENDANT
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL
INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL
RULE 3-3

Defendant.

25
26
27
28
STIP. RE DEFENDANT BROCADE’S SUPPL.
INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO
PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3
CASE No. 1 1-cv-05493 LHK

Case5:11-cv-05493-LHK Document76 Filed04/17/12 Page2 of 3

1

Plaintiff AlO Networks, Inc. (AlO) and Defendant Brocade Communications

2

Systems, Inc. (Brocade) submit this Stipulation regarding the amendment of Brocade’s

3

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions under Patent L. R. 3-6. The Parties ask the Court to approve

4

the Stipulation.

5

1.

6

Local Rule 3-3 on April 2, 2012.

7

2.

Brocade served its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions pursuant to Patent

Brocade has prepared Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions

8

which include references to newly discovered patents and publications that Brocade contends is

9

prior art. Brocade represents that this alleged prior art was discovered and analyzed by Brocade

10
11

in the course of a diligent prior art search after April 2.
3.

On identifying this alleged prior art, Brocade prepared Supplemental

12

Invalidity Contentions and accompanying claim charts for the prior art. Brocade produced copies

13

of all the newly discovered prior art to AlO on April 10, 2012.

14

4.

Brocade presented the Supplemental Invalidity Contentions to AlO’s

15

counsel on April 10, 2012 seeking a stipulation. Brocade and AlO have met and conferred

16

regarding Brocade’s request to supplement its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.

17
18
19

5.

AlO has agreed to stipulate to grant Brocade’s leave to serve its

Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions as provided to A 10 on April 10, 2012.
6.

A 10’s agreement to stipulate to such amendment shall not be construed as

20

an admission that AlO agrees with any of Brocade’s contentions, or that AlO agrees that Brocade

21

may further supplement its contentions in any manner.

22

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby AGREE AND STIPULATE and request

23

that the Court order that Brocade’s request for leave to serve its Supplemental Preliminary

24

Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-3 is GRANTED.

25
26
27
28
-

1
-

STIP. RE DEFENDANT BROCADE’S SUPPL.
INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO
PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3
CASE No. 11 -cv-05493 LHK

__________________________________

_______________

Case5:11-cv-05493-LHK Document76 Filed04/17/12 Page3 of 3

1

Dated: April 17, 2012

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

2
3

By

Is! Siddhartha M Venkatesan
Siddhartha Venkatesan
Attorneys for Defendant
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.

4

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), I attest
under penalty ofperjury that concurrence in the
filing ofthe document has been obtainedfrom each
of its signatories.

6
7
8

9

Dated: April 17, 2012

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

10
By

ii

Is! Ryan Hatch
Ryan Hatch
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AlO Networks, Inc.

12
13
14

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

17

Dated:

April 23, 2012
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-

C

-

STIP. RE DEFENDANT BROCADE’S SUPPL.
INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO
PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3
CASE No. 11 -cv-05493 LHK