Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Case Droplets, Inc. v. Nordstrom, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

July 2, 2013

Case DROPLETS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant.

Bonnie M. Grant, E. Danielle T. Williams, William H. Boice, Russell A. Korn, Bonnie M. Grant, Winston-Salem, NC, Robert J. Artuz, Menlo Park, CA, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP. Attorneys for Defendant Nordstrom, Inc.

Josh W. Budwin, Courtland Reichman, McKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C., California Bar No. 268873 Redwood Shores, CA, McKOOL SMITH, P.C., Sam F. Baxter, (admitted pro hac vice), Marshall, Texas, Josh W. Budwin (admitted pro hac vice), James E. Quigley (admitted pro hac vice), Austin, Texas, Attorneys for Plaintiff Droplets, Inc.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING THE TIME FOR NORDSTROM'S REPLY BRIEF

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, Defendant Nordstrom, Inc. ("Nordstrom") respectfully submits this stipulated request for an Order changing the time for filing of Nordstrom's reply brief in support of Nordstrom's motion to stay the current litigation, and would show the Court the following:

On June 7, 2013, Nordstrom filed a motion to stay the current litigation pending the final resolution of the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7, 502, 838 (the "838 patent"), one of the two patents asserted by Plaintiff Droplets, Inc. ("Droplets"). (Dkt. 51, the "Stay Motion.")[1] Droplets filed an opposition to the Stay Motion on June 21, 2013. (Dkt. 61.) The Stay Motion and Droplets' opposition thereto were filed in the San Jose division, while this action was pending before Judge Davila.

Subsequently, on June 20, 2013, Judge Davila entered an order recusing himself from the action and reassigning the action to this Court. (Dkt. 59.) On June 21, 2013, this Court entered an Order directing Nordstrom to renotice the Stay Motion for Hearing, and specifying that briefing schedules on the Stay Motion would remain unchanged. (Dkt. 60.) On June 27, 2013, Nordstrom renoticed the Stay Motion in this Court and set a hearing for August 2, 1013. (Dkt. 63.) Nordstrom's reply in support of the Stay Motion is currently due on June 28, 2013.

Nordstrom respectfully requests a ten (10) day extension of time, up to and including July 8, 2013, in which to file a reply brief in support of the Stay Motion. The requested extension will provide Nordstrom with sufficient time to consider the points raised in Droplets' opposition. (Decl. of Bonnie M. Grant at ¶ 5, "Grant Decl.") The requested extension of time will not affect the schedule for the case, because the Stay Motion is not noticed for a hearing until August 2, 2013 and a Case Management Conference is not set until September 4, 2013. (Grant Decl. at ¶ 6; see also Dkts. 62, 63.) Nordstrom has conferred with counsel for Droplets, who confirmed that Droplets does not oppose the requested extension of time. (Grant Decl. at ¶ 7.)

THEREFORE, it is stipulated by the Parties that:

The due date for the filing of Nordstrom's reply brief in support of the Stay Motion is extended up to and including July 8, 2013.

SO STIPULATED

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.