NetJumper Sofware L. L. C. v. Google, Incorporated

Filing 89

RESPONSE to 88 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant Google, Inc.'s Markman Brief filed by Google, Incorporated. (Wolff, Jason)

NetJumper Sofware L. L. C. v. Google, Incorporated

Doc. 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NETJUMPER SOFTWARE, L.L.C. a Michigan limited liability corporation, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation Defendant. _______________________________________________________________________________ Andrew Kochanowski Nabeel M. Hamameh SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC 2000 Town Center, Suite 900 Southfield, MI 48075 [phone] Michael H. Baniak Gary E. Hood BANIAK PINE & GANNON 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60606 Attorneys for NetJumper Software, L.L.C. Kathleen A. Lang (P34695) L. Pahl Zinn (P57516) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226-3425 [phone] Frank E. Scherkenbach FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110-2804 Howard G. Pollack FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 Jason W. Wolff FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130-2081 Attorneys for Google Inc. GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO NETJUMPER'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ONE-WEEK EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S MARKMAN BRIEF Civil Action No. 04-70366-CV Hon. Julian Abele Cook Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

Dockets.Justia.com

Google does not oppose the extension that NetJumper seeks, and Google told NetJumper as much last week. Specifically: (1) (2) Google gave NetJumper the one-week extension of time it is asking for on July 19, 2006; and As shown on page 6 of 7 of Exhibit A to NetJumper's motion (Google's bullet point referring to the July 19, 2006 modifications to the claim construction briefing schedule), Google did not rescind that agreement--Google merely stated that it would need a reciprocal extension to file its reply, which is also due on July 31, 2006, because Google obviously cannot file its reply on the same day it receives NetJumper's opposition.

Upon receipt of the instant motion, counsel for Google called counsel for NetJumper and asked if it was now NetJumper's intention that Google should not also be granted an extra week to file its reply brief--contrary to the earlier agreement. Counsel for NetJumper said it was not. Thus, while NetJumper's motion is unnecessary, it is necessary for the Court to modify the briefing schedule. The modified schedule, to which both parties consent, should have no effect on the Court's calendar. The new dates would be: · · NetJumper's opposition claim construction brief is due July 31, 2006. Google's reply claim construction brief is due August 7, 2006.

Respectfully Submitted, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Dated: July 24, 2006 By: /s/ Jason W. Wolff 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Google Inc.

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 24, 2006, I electronically filed GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO NETJUMPER'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ONE-WEEK EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S MARKMAN BRIEF with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notice of such filing upon the following attorney: ANDREW KOCHANOWSKI and MICHAEL H. BANIAK. By: /s/ Jason W. Wolff FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 [phone] [e-mail]

2