UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
March 4, 2008
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, PLAINTIFF,
VISTO CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
VISTO CORPORATION, COUNTER-CLAIMANT,
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, AND RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, COUNTER-DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING COURT DEADLINE UNDER PATENT RULE 4-3
Visto Corporation and Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation, through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows:
1. On October 1, 2007, the parties filed a CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (Docket No. 21) ("Case Management Order");
2. On October 9, 2007, the Court issued an order adopting with certain exceptions the Case Management Order (Docket No. 22);
3. Under the Case Management Order, the filing of the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement under Patent L.R. 4-3 was originally scheduled for February 11, 2008;
4. On January 9, 2008, the parties filed a stipulation (Docket No. 26) extending certain Patent Local Rule deadlines, which included a request that the filing date of the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement be moved to February 25, 2008;
5. On January 11, 2008, the Court entered an order (Docket No. 27) extending the deadlines set forth in the parties' stipulation;
6. On February 22, 2008, the Court further extended the deadline for the filing of the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement until March 3, 2008; and
7. The Parties believe that an additional extension of time will enable them to complete the meet and confer process on the terms to be construed.
In order to complete a meaningful meet and confer on the terms to be construed, the parties hereby agree, subject to approval by the Court, to the following modifications to the Case Management Order:
1. The date for filing the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement under Patent L.R. 4-3 shall be extended from March 3, 2008 to March 17, 2008;
2. This stipulation is limited to compliance with Patent L.R. 4-3 and does not relate to any other phase of this case; and
3. No other deadlines under the Case Management Order are affected by this stipulation.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: March 3, 2008
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Eugene L. Hahm Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant VISTO CORPORATION
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Philip T. Chen Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendants RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, and RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION
Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, Eugene Hahm hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.
Good cause appearing, the parties' stipulation is hereby GRANTED. The deadlines for compliance with Patent L.R. 4-3 as set forth in the stipulation are modified as follows:
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing March 17, 2008 Statement under Patent L.R. 4-3 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.