From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Solannex, Inc. v. Miasole

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 1, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-0171 (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11-CV-0171 (PSG)

11-01-2011

SOLANNEX, INC., Plaintiff, v. MIASOLE Defendant.

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Gregory S. Tamkin (State Bar No. 175009) Case Collard (State Bar No. 245834) Attorneys for Plaintiff SOLANNEX, INC. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) Ray Zado (Bar No. 208501) Anna T. Neill (Bar No. 270858) Attorneys for MIASOLE


Gregory S. Tamkin (State Bar No. 175009)

Case Collard (State Bar No. 245834)

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SOLANNEX, INC.

Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737)

Ray Zado (Bar No. 208501)

Anna T. Neill (Bar No. 270858)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim

Plaintiff MIASOLE, INC.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR

PRIVATE ADR SESSION

[Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2]

Honorable Paul S. Grewal

United States District Judge

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiff Solannex, Inc. ("Solannex") and Defendant MiaSole respectfully request that the Court enter the below stipulation Enlarging Time for the parties to engage in a private mediation session pursuant to the Court's April 20, 2011 Order Selecting ADR Process. The parties AGREE AND STIPULATE to extend the deadline for such mediation session from Monday, October 31, 2011 until Monday, March 9, 2012.

1. Reason for the Request

On April 20, 2011, the Court issued an order setting the deadline for the parties mandatory ADR session of October 31, 2011, which date was set approximately four weeks after the Claim Construction Hearing date set by the Court's April 4, 2011 Case Management Order. Since that time, plaintiff Solannex has substituted counsel, and the parties have agreed to extensions to the claim construction process such that the Claim Construction Hearing is now set for January 17, 2012. In view of these changes to the claim construction schedule, the parties believe that additional time to engage in the mediation process would be beneficial. The parties at this time are in the process of discussing the selection of an agreed upon third party JAMS mediator for such session.

2. Prior Time Modifications

The time for MiaSole to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint was previously extended by 30 days. The Initial Status Conference was previously extended by 15 days from February 28 to March 15. Solannex was allowed to supplement its May 10, 2011 infringement contentions 48 days later, on June 27, 2011. MiaSole's invalidity contention deadline was previously extended by 17 days from June 24, 2011 to July 11, 2011. On August 19, 2011, pursuant to a stipulated scheduled agreed to by the parties, the Court entered a Second Amended Case Management Order that, inter alia, extended the claim construction deadlines such that the claim construction hearing was extended by approximately three and one half months. The subsequent dates were also extended such that the trial date was extended by approximately two and one half months. The parties stipulated and the court granted a two-day extension for the Patent L.R. 4-2 Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions from September 19, 2011 to September 21, 2011. The parties stipulated and the court granted n extension of the deadline for the exchange of preliminary claim constructions by one court day from October 11, 2011 to October 12, 2011.

3. Effect of Requested Modification

These extension currently under discussion will have no effect on the dates for claim construction briefing or any subsequent deadlines in this case.

So Stipulated.

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

Gregory S. Tamkin (State Bar No. 175009)

Case Collard (State Bar No. 245834)

Attorneys for Plaintiff SOLANNEX, INC.

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP

Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737)

Ray Zado (Bar No. 208501)

Anna T. Neill (Bar No. 270858)

Attorneys for MIASOLE

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Honorable Paul S. Grewal

United States Magistrate Judge

ATTESTATION

I hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B that concurrence in the electronic filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories.

Ray R. Zado

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's ECF System.

Ray R. Zado


Summaries of

Solannex, Inc. v. Miasole

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 1, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-0171 (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Solannex, Inc. v. Miasole

Case Details

Full title:SOLANNEX, INC., Plaintiff, v. MIASOLE Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 11-CV-0171 (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)