Fortinet Inc. v. FireEye Inc.

Filing 84

ORDER GRANTING 83 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS filed by FireEye Inc. The amended answer shall be filed as a separate docket item forthwith. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/10/2015. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2015)

1

7

JOHN NEUKOM (Bar No. 275887)
[e-mail]
ANDREW M. HOLMES (Bar No. 260475)
[e-mail]
ALICIA VEGLIA (Bar No. 291070)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW CANNON (Bar No. 252666)
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4788
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff FORTINET, INC.

2
3
4
5
6

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SHANE BRUN (SBN 179079)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone.: [phone]
Facsimile.: 415.677.9041
CHARLES H. SANDERS (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant FIREEYE, INC.

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN JOSE DIVISION

22

FORTINET, INC.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-02496-EJD-PSG
Plaintiff,

23
24

vs.

25

FIREEYE, INC.,

26
27

STIPULATION REGARDING
[PROPOSED] AMENDED ANSWER AND
XXXXXXXX
COUNTERCLAIMS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

Courtroom: 4
Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
Floor: 5th Floor

28
STIPULATION REGARDING [PROPOSED] AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-02496-EJD-PSG

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiff Fortinet, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant FireEye, Inc. (“FireEye” or “Defendant”)
hereby stipulate and agree to the following terms:
WHEREAS on November 21, 2014, Defendant filed its Answer to Fortinet’s First Amended
Complaint and Counterclaims; and
WHEREAS FireEye sought consent from Plaintiff to amend its Answer and Counterclaims to
include a government sales defense under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, and Plaintiff agreed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties by and through their respective counsel hereby stipulate

8

and agree that the Amended Answer to Fortinet’s First Amended Complaint and Counterclaims

9

attached hereto as Exhibit A may be filed by consent pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10

15(a)(2) and deemed filed and served as of this date.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION REGARDING [PROPOSED] AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-02496-EJD-PSG

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED on this 9th day of February, 2015.

2

Respectfully submitted,

3
4

Dated: February 9, 2015

5

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
By:

6
7
8
9
10
11

/s/ Matthew Cannon
John M. Neukom
Andrew M. Holmes
Alicia M. Veglia
Matthew Cannon
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FORTINET, INC.

12

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

13
By:

14
15
16
17

/s/ Shane Brun
Shane Brun
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FIREEYE, INC.

18
19
20
21

ORDER

22

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
The amended answer shall be filed as a separate docket item forthwith.

23

2/10/2015
DATED: _____________________

24

______________________________________
HON. EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION REGARDING [PROPOSED] AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-02496-EJD-PSG

1

Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) Attestation

2

I, Shane Brun, am the ECF user whose ID and Password are being used to file this

3

STIPULATION REGARDING [PROPOSED] AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS.

4

In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Matthew Cannon counsel

5

for Plaintiff, Fortinet, Inc., has concurred in its filing.

6
7

Dated:

February 9, 2015

/s/ Shane Brun
Shane Brun

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION REGARDING [PROPOSED] AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-02496-EJD-PSG

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

3

document has been served on February 9, 2015, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have

4

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5-5. Any

5

counsel of record who have not consented to electronic service through the Court’s CM/ECF system

6

will be served by electronic mail, first class mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.

7
/s/ Shane Brun
Shane Brun

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

STIPULATION REGARDING [PROPOSED] AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-02496-EJD-PSG