Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. A9.com, Inc. et al

Filing 106

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 102 Response in Opposition to Motion to Consolidate by Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Davis, William)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
A9.COM, INC.,
AMAZON.COM, INC.,
GOOGLE, INC.,
NOKIA, INC.
and
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.
Defendants.
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NOKIA CORPORATION, and
RICOH COMPANY, LTD
Defendants.
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
A9.COM, INC.,
AMAZON.COM, INC.,
GOOGLE, INC.,
NOKIA, INC.
and
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 2:10-cv-00364-TJW-CE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

C.A. No. 2:10-cv-00365-TJW

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

C.A. No. 2:10-cv-00577-TJW-CE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1

Defendants.
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NOKIA CORPORATION, and
RICOH COMPANY, LTD
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 2:10-cv-00578-TJW-CE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
COMES NOW, Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff”) and files this
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants A9.com, Inc., Amazon.com,
Inc., Google, Inc., Nokia, Inc. and Ricoh Innovations, Inc.’s (“collectively defendants”)
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate and in support thereof would state
as follows:
Defendants filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate on
September 23, 2011. (Dkt. 102) Plaintiff’s Reply is currently due on Monday, October 3, 2011.
Plaintiff respectfully requests an additional one (1) week to file its Reply to Response in
Opposition to Motion to Consolidate up to and including Monday, October 10, 2011.
Counsel for Plaintiff conferred with counsel for Defendants and Defendants do not
oppose the relief requested herein.
Dated: September 30, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ William E. Davis, III
William E. Davis, III
Texas State Bar No. 24047416
The Davis Firm, P.C.
111 W. Tyler St.
2

Longview, Texas 75601
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Of Counsel
Cameron H. Tousi
David M. Farnum
Ralph P. Albrecht
Albrecht Tousi & Farnum, PLLC
1701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Ste 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who are
deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d) and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have
consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by
email, on this the 30th day of September, 2011.
/s/ William E. Davis, III
William E. Davis, III

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned certifies that counsel has complied with the meet and confer
requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h), and that this motion is unopposed.
/s/ William E. Davis, III
William E. Davis, III

4