Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05568-JSW

Document 33

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP DAVID A. JAKOPIN #209950 [email protected] THEODORE K. BELL #184289 [email protected] DANIEL J. RICHERT #232208 [email protected] 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1114 Telephone: (650) 233-4500 Facsimile: (650) 233-4545 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP BRADLEY J. HULBERT [email protected] KURT W. ROHDE [email protected] RICHARD A. MACHONKIN [email protected] 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-6709 Telephone: (312) 913-0001 Facsimile: (312) 913-0002 Attorneys for Defendant DIGITAL NETWORKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

JENS ERIK SORENSEN, as Trustee of SORENSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TRUST,, Plaintiff, vs. DIGITAL NETWORKS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

Case No. 07 CV 5568 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-3 TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT PENDING MOTION TO STAY [Civ. L.R. 6-3] Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White Filed Concurrently: 1. Motion to Enlarge Time 2. Declaration of Theodore K. Bell

24 25 26 27 28
700909967v1

-1-

Case No. 07 CV 5568 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S L.R. 6-3 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

Case 3:07-cv-05568-JSW

Document 33

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant DIGITAL NETWORKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. ("Defendant") has moved pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3 to enlarge time to respond to plaintiff's amended complaint. The Court, having considered Defendant's motion and plaintiff's opposition thereto, finds that there is good cause to grant Defendant's motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. Defendant has filed a motion to stay these proceedings pending reexamination of the patentin-suit by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Motion to Stay"). Dkt. 24. It is in the interest of judicial economy to stay Defendant's requirement to respond to the amended complaint until after this Court rules upon the Motion to Stay. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. 2. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's amended

complaint unless and until ten (10) days after this Court enters an Order denying the Motion to Stay. Dated:December 18 2007. __________,

_______________________________ Hon. Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

700909967v1

-2-

Case No. 07 CV 5568 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S L.R. 6-3 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME