From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Finisar Corp. v. Oplink Commc'n, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 25, 2011
Case No. 5:10-cv-05617-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 5:10-cv-05617-RS

10-25-2011

FINISAR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, OPTICAL COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

COOLEY LLP Sarah J. Guske (232467) Attorneys for Defendants OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND OPTICAL COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS, INC. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Dion Bregman Attorneys for Plaintiff FINISAR CORPORATION


COOLEY LLP

THOMAS J. FRIEL, JR.

(State Bar No. 80065)

MARK T. SMITH (State Bar No. 260845)

Five Palo Alto Square

SARAH J. GUSKE (State Bar No. 232467)

WAYNE O. STACY (pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Defendants

OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and

OPTICAL COMMUNICATION

PRODUCTS, INC.

Daniel Johnson, Jr. (State Bar No. 57409)

Michael J. Lyons (State Bar No. 202284)

Harry F. Doscher (State Bar No. 245969)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FINISAR CORPORATION

JOINT STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING

DEADLINE

Whereas, the parties seek the Court's clarification of certain deadlines and requirements relating to issues of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112;

It is hereby Stipulated and Ordered that: :

1. Other than for terms for which a party otherwise seeks a construction from the Court or for 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) terms, it is not necessary for the parties to address 35 U.S.C. § 112 invalidity issues in Patent Local Rule 4 disclosures and not addressing such issues in the Patent Local Rule 4 disclosures will not be deemed a waiver of any of parties' rights, defenses, or claims.
2. The deadline for filing any opening motions for summary judgment relating to alleged invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 will be the same as the deadline for filing opening summary judgment briefs on other issues—a deadline which has yet to be ordered by the Court,

So Stipulated:

COOLEY LLP

Sarah J. Guske (232467)

Attorneys for Defendants

OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND

OPTICAL COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS,

INC.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Dion Bregman

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FINISAR CORPORATION

Filer's Attestation re signatures: Sarah J. Guske hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

United States District Court Judge ____


Summaries of

Finisar Corp. v. Oplink Commc'n, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 25, 2011
Case No. 5:10-cv-05617-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011)
Case details for

Finisar Corp. v. Oplink Commc'n, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FINISAR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. OPLINK…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Oct 25, 2011

Citations

Case No. 5:10-cv-05617-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011)