STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND QUANTUM'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO RIVERBED'S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COUNTERCLAIMS [Civil L.R. 6-2] Honorable William H. Alsup United States District Judge Filed: August 14, 2007 Trial Date: February 2, 2009
The parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate and agree that Quantum's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Riverbed's declaratory judgmentcounterclaims be extended by one week, from April 14, 2008 to April 21, 2008, as set forth below:
On November 1, 2007, this Court issued an order based on a stipulation of the parties continuing the Initial Case Management Conference in this action from November 15 to November On December 14, 2007, this Court issued an order based on a stipulation of the
A. Prior Time Modifications
29. (Docket No. 19.) parties extending certain deadlines relating to the service of the parties' preliminary infringement and invalidity contentions. (Docket No. 34.) parties extending the deadline for the parties to exchange preliminary claim constructions and evidence. (Docket No. 80.) consolidating this case with a related case transferred to this District from the District of Delaware and setting a new comprehensive claim construction, pre-trial, and trial schedule. (Docket No. 92.)
On March 7, 2008, Quantum filed a counterclaim against Riverbed for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,990,810. (Docket No. 93.) On March 24, 2008, Riverbed answered Quantum's counterclaim for infringement of the '810 patent, and included with its answer declaratory judgment counterclaims of its own for non-infringement and invalidity of the '810 patent. (Docket No. 94.) judgment counterclaims in Docket No. 94 is April 14, 2008. The parties propose this deadline be extended to April 21, 2008.
On February 15, 2008, this Court issued an order pursuant to a request from the
On March 4, 2008, this Court issued an order based on a stipulation of the parties
B. Proposed Change to Quantum's Deadline to Respond
Quantum's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Riverbed's declaratory
C. Reasons for Requested Change in Schedule
Riverbed filed declaratory judgment claims for non-infringement and invalidity of the '810 patent in the District of Delaware, which claims were transferred to this District, and then consolidated with this case pursuant to Docket. No. 92. Quantum has answered those declaratory judgment claims, but Riverbed filed and has still maintained its separate declaratory judgment counterclaims in Docket No. 94 based on its own analysis of its need to preserve certain rights.
After exchanging correspondence, the parties conferred telephonically on Friday, April 11, 2008 in an effort to reach a stipulation whereby Riverbed selects only one set of its declaratory judgment claims on which to proceed, desiring to streamline the case and pleadings, address Quantum's concerns about redundant declaratory judgment claims, and address Riverbed's concerns about preserving its declaratory relief rights. The parties believe that obtaining an extra week before Quantum must respond to Riverbed's declaratory judgment counterclaims in Docket No. 94 will give them the time ...