UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
April 13, 2010
FORTINET, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF
TREND MICRO INCORPORATED, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Court Judge
SECOND STIPULATED MOTION FOR ORDER (1) VACATING AND RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES, AND (2) CONTINUING LOCAL PATENT RULE DISCLOSURES; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
defendants Trend Micro Incorporated, a California corporation, Trend Micro Incorporated, a "Trend Micro"), by and through their counsel of record, as follows: pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Motion to Dismiss"); Vacating and Resetting Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, and (2) 9 Case Management Conference and related deadlines and disclosures would occur after the
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2010, this Court granted the Stipulated Order except that the Case Management Conference was continued to May 28, 2010;
supplemental briefing and continuing the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss to May 14, 2010;
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) no later than May 7, 2010, prior to the date set for the 18 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss;
Trend Micro's Motion to Dismiss will clarify the matters at issue and the proper scope of discovery in this case, if any, and thus it will be more efficient and productive for the Court to:
2010, and reset the Initial Case Management Conference for 30 days after the Court rules on
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Fortinet, Inc. ("Fortinet") and Japanese Corporation, and Trend Micro Incorporated, a Taiwanese corporation (collectively,
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2010, Trend Micro filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2010, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion for Order (1) Continuing Local Patent Rule Disclosures ("Stipulated Motion"), which provided that the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss;
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2010, this Court issued an Order setting a schedule for WHEREAS, under the current schedule, the parties must meet and confer pursuant to WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and jointly believe that the ruling on (1) vacate the initial Case Management Conference currently scheduled for May 28, Trend Micro's Motion to Dismiss, if the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss;
Case Management Conference issued after the Court rules on Trend Micro's Motion to (3) order that the parties' obligations to begin making their respective Patent Disclosures under the Local Patent Rules are continued until after the Court holds the initial
WHEREAS, there is no schedule set in this case beyond the dates set for the initial Case Management Conference and further briefing and the hearing on Trend Micro's (2) reset the ADR and Rule 26-related deadlines in an Order Resetting the Initial Dismiss; and
Case Management Conference, as contemplated above and in the Patent Local Rules.
Motion to Dismiss, therefore, this Stipulated Motion will not impact the schedule in this 10 case after those dates; pursuant to the above stipulations, hereby jointly move the Court for an Order:
28, 2010, and resetting the Initial Case Management Conference for 30 days after the Court rules on Trend Micro's Motion to Dismiss, if the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss;
regarding initial disclosures and discovery plan, to file a Rule 26(f) Report, to complete initial disclosures, and to file a Joint Case Management Statement, in an Order that the Court will issue if the Court denies Trend Micro's Motion to Dismiss; and Disclosures under the Local Patent Rules shall begin after the Court holds the Initial Case
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their undersigned counsel and (1) vacating the Initial Case Management Conference currently scheduled for May
(2) resetting the ADR deadlines and the deadlines for the parties to meet and confer
(3) providing that the parties' obligations to begin making their respective Patent Management Conference, as contemplated above and in the Patent Local Rules.
PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' STIPULATED MOTION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.