Opinion
Case No. C-08-4990 EMC
03-25-2013
MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, Defendants.
Respectfully submitted, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Edward R. Reines Attorney for MFORMATION SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP Linda S. Debruin Attorney for Defendants RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION FOLEY & LARNDER LLP Justin E. Gray Attorney for Plaintiff MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Edward R. Reines
EDWARD R. REINES (Bar No. 135960)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Attorney for MFORMATION SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
JUSTIN E. GRAY (Bar No. 282452)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
Attorney for MFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
LINDA S. DEBRUIN (Admitted to this
Court on September 27, 1991)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Attorney for Defendants
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and
RESEARCH IN MOTION
CORPORATION
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER
The undersigned counsel for Defendants Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, "Defendants-Appellees"), and for Plaintiff Mformation Technologies, Inc. ("Mformation Technologies"), along with the undersigned counsel for Mformation Software Technologies, Inc. ("Mformation Software"), hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the Court's approval, as follows:
WHEREAS, the above-captioned action is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Mformation Technologies v. Research in Motion, No. 2012-1679, 2013-1123 (Fed. Cir.);
WHEREAS, Mformation Software has moved, pursuant to FRAP 43, to substitute as appellant based on its contention that it has obtained Mformation Technologies' rights in this litigation, including all right, title, and interest to the patents-in-suit and the right to sue for past infringement;
WHEREAS, Defendants-Appellees have opposed Mformation Software's motion to substitute as appellant and have moved to dismiss the appeal but, without waiving their rights with respect to such motions, desire to facilitate briefing under the schedule set by the Federal Circuit;
WHEREAS, the Protective Order in effect in this case contemplates modification with this Court's approval, see Dkt. No. 51 [Stipulated Protective Order (as modified by the Court)] at § 6.4; and
WHEREAS, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and over collateral aspects of the above-captioned case not affecting the questions presented on appeal;
THEREFORE, Mformation Technologies, Defendants-Appellees, and Mformation Software hereby stipulate to the following:
1. Section 1 of the May 14, 2009 Protective Order (Dkt. No. 51) ("the Protective Order") is amended to add the following as its final paragraph:
All provisions of this Order applicable to Mformation Technologies and its Outside Counsel shall apply to and be binding on Mformation Software and its Outside Counsel, respectively. Outside Counsel for Mformation Software shall be permitted access to Protected Information under this Order to the same extent and subject to the same restrictions and obligations as Outside Counsel for Mformation Technologies.
2. The Protective Order is also amended to add the following section:
5.9 Effect of Modification (added by stipulation of March 11, 2013)
Mformation Software shall be bound by the restrictions of this Protective Order as if it were a Receiving Party with respect to any Discovery Material.
3. No other changes to the May 14, 2009 Protective Order are authorized hereby.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted,
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
By: _________________
Edward R. Reines
Attorney for MFORMATION SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
By: _________________
Linda S. Debruin
Attorney for Defendants
RESEARCH IN MOTION
LIMITED and RESEARCH
IN MOTION
CORPORATION
FOLEY & LARNDER LLP
By: _________________
Justin E. Gray
Attorney for Plaintiff
MFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
I, Edward R. Reines, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Modify Protective Order. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Linda S. Debruin and Justin E. Gray have concurred in this filing.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
By: _________________
Edward R. Reines
ORDER ON THE FOREGOING STIPULATION
The Court, having reviewed the above stipulation and finding good cause therefor, renders this stipulation a binding ORDER of this Court.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Judge Edward M. Chen
See In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (exception to general rule that the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction "where the district court action aids" the appeals court "in [its] review"); Weaver v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 172 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 1999) ("The general rule regarding divestiture of jurisdiction" does "not apply to collateral matters not affecting the questions presented on appeal."); see also Dkt. No. 51 [Protective Order] at § 6.2 (this Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties and any other person who has had access to Protected Information pursuant to this Order").