Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation et al

Filing 49

STIPULATION AND ORDER 38 Selecting ADR Process. Case Referred to Mediation. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 3/21/13. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

CHRISTOPHER J. COX (Bar No. 151650)
Email: [e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
DAVID L. YOHAI (Admitted pro hac vice)
ADAM C. HEMLOCK (Admitted pro hac vice)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants,
PANASONIC CORPORATION AND
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15

INNOVUS PRIME LLC,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18

Civil Action No. 12-0660 RMW
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,

19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23

Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the
following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5:

24

The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:

25

Court Processes:

26

☐
☐


27
28

Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)

(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
SELECTING ADR PROCESS

CASE NO. 12-0660 RMW

1

appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR must participate in an

2

ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for

3

ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5).

4

Private Process:

5

☐

6

_____________________________________________________________________________

7

The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:

8

☐

9

case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.)

Private ADR (please identify process and provider) ______________________

the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the

10

☐

11

Dated: September __, 2011

other requested deadline _____________________________________________
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

12
By:

/s/ Christopher J. Cox
Christopher J. Cox
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendant|
Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America

16
17

Dated: September __, 2011

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. CARPENTER
LLC

18
19

By:

21

/s/ John W. Carpenter
John W. Carpenter
12 Metairie Court
Metairie, LA 70001-3032

22

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Innovus Prime LLC

20

23
24
25
26

[] ORDER
☐
☐

The parties’ stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties’ stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________ 201

27

__________________________
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
SELECTING ADR PROCESS

2

CASE NO. 12-0660 RMW