May 6, 2013
EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff,
SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.; ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.; BROADSOFT, INC.; CLAVISTER AB; CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.; MAVENIR SYSTEMS, INC.; MERU NETWORKS, INC.; SERCOMM CORPORATION; SONUS NETWORKS, INC.; STOKE, INC.; TAQUA, LLC; HTC AMERICA, INC.; UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION; MOTOROLA MOBILITY HOLDINGS, INC.; MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.; KINETO WIRELESS, INC.; and AIRVANA, INC., Defendants.
John V. Picone III, Bar No. 187226, Jennifer S. Coleman, Bar No. 213210, Christopher A. Hohn, Bar No. 271759, HOPKINS & CARLEY, A Law Corporation, San Jose, CA, Daniel R. Scardino, Cabrach J. Connor, Chad Ennis, REED & SCARDINO LLP, Austin, TX, Attorneys for Plaintiff EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC.
STIPULATED REQUEST AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR EON TO FILE A RESPONSE TO SERCOMM'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO: 1) COMPEL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS THAT COMPLY WITH PATENT L.R. 3-1; AND
2) FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY OR LIMIT CERTAIN DISCOVERY
ELIZABETH D. LaPORTE, District Judge.
Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC ("EON") hereby requests and Defendant SerComm Corporation ("SerComm") agrees to a ten (10) day extension of time for EON to file a response to SerComm's Notice of Motion and Motion to:
1) An Order compelling EON to provide infringement contentions that comply with patent L.R. 3-1; and,
2) A Protective Order to stay or limit certain discovery.
On April 8, 2013, EON filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 674) for EON to respond to SerComm's Motion. On April 18, EON filed a Stipulated Request for Extension of Time. (Dkt. No. 677). Since then, the parties reached a tentative agreement regarding the above issues and expect to finalize the agreement in the next several days. Therefore, the motion will likely be mooted prior to any necessary hearing. The requested extension for time will move the Response due date to May 13, and the Reply due date to May 20, 2013. The motion is currently set for hearing on June 4, 2013. The parties request that the hearing be continued. In the event that the parties are unable to reach a resolution, the parties agree to reschedule a hearing date at the Court's earliest convenience.
The extension will affect no other date or deadline in this case. For the foregoing reasons, EON requests and SerComm does not oppose that the Court grant the request and extend the deadline for EON to file its response to SerComm's Motions.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.