Calix Networks, Inc., A Delaware Corporation v. Wi-Lan

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles R. Brey United States District Judge

Scott D. Baker (SBN 84923) Email: sbaker@reedsmith.com 2 John P. Bovich (SBN 150688) Email: jbovich@reedsmith.com 3 William R. Overend (SBN 180209) Email: woverend@reedsmith.com Jonah D. Mitchell (SBN 203511) Email: jmitchell@reedsmith.com Adaline J. Hilgard (SBN 173213) Email: ahilgard@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 7 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Telephone: 415 543 8700 8 Facsimile: 415 391 8269 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Calix, Inc. 10 e r a w KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP a l e D David B. Perry (SBN 255925) f o e 11Email: Dperry@kilpatricktownsend.com t a t S Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor P e L h L t 12San Francisco, CA 94111 n H i d e Telephone: (415) 273-7573 T I m M r o f 13Facsimile: (415) 723-7245 14Attorneys for Defendant

S p i

D h s

E r e

E n t

R r a p y

15

Wi-LAN, Inc.

t i l i b a i l d

16

e t i m i l A

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NOS. CV-09-6038 CRB AND FOR ALL PURPOSES Complaint Filed: December 28, 2009

1. Calix filed the instant lawsuit against Wi-LAN on December 28, 2009. This lawsuit

5 seeks declaratory judgments that U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323 ("the '323 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 6

6, 763,019 ("the '019 patent") are invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable, and also asserts claims 7 against Wi-LAN for breach of contract and related claims. On October 10, 2010, Wi-LAN filed its 8

First Amended Answer and Counterclaim, alleging infringement of the '323 and '019 patents by 9

Calix. [Doc. # 77.]

2. On April 1, 2010, Wi-LAN filed an action, Wi-Lan v. CALIX, Inc. Case No. 2:10-CV-

10

e r a w a l

e D

11

f o e t a t S

117-TJW, against Calix asserting infringement of the '323 and '019 patents in the U.S. District

12

Court for the Eastern District of Texas ("the Texas Action"). On November 29, 2010, Calix filed an

P e

L h

L t n

H i d

T e

13Answer and Counterclaims, asserting the same Counterclaims in the Texas Action which it had

I

m

M ...