Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00826/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00826-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO

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

DOUGLAS E. LUMISH (Bar No. 183863)

doug.lumish@lw.com

GABRIEL S. GROSS (Bar No. 254672)

gabe.gross@lw.com

PATRICIA YOUNG (Bar No. 291265)

patricia.young@lw.com

RAVI ANTANI (Bar No. 312613)

ravi.antani@lw.com

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

140 Scott Drive

Menlo Park, California 94025

Telephone: +1.650.328.4600

Facsimile: +1.650.463.2600

Attorneys for Plaintiff CODEXIS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CODEXIS, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

ENZYMEWORKS, INC., a California 

corporation, ENZYMEWORKS, INC., a 

Chinese corporation a/k/a SUZHOU 

HANMEI BIOTECHNOLOGY CO. LTD 

d/b/a ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (CHINA), JUNHUA TAO, an individual, and 

ANDREW TAO, an individual

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00826-WHO

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR 

CODEXIS’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 37 AND 

COURT ORDERS (DKT. NO. 166) AND TO 

VACATE THE DEADLINE FOR EXPERT 

REBUTTAL REPORTS

Case 3:16-cv-00826-WHO Document 176 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO

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

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), 6-1(b) and 6-2, Plaintiff Codexis, Inc. (“Codexis”), 

and Defendants EnzymeWorks, Inc. (U.S.), EnzymeWorks, Inc. (China), Junhua Tao, and Andrew 

Tao (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, hereby agree and stipulate: 

WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to file omnibus motions to compel discovery by 

December 13, 2017, oppositions by December 27, 2017, and replies by January 3, 2018, and set 

the hearing date for the motions for January 17, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (see Dkt. Nos. 159, 160);

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, Codexis filed its Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Orders (“Motion”);

WHEREAS, on December 27, 2017, Defendants filed their Opposition to Codexis’s Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Orders (“Opposition”);

WHEREAS, upon stipulation of the parties because of a scheduling conflict, the Court has 

continued the hearing date for Codexis’s Motion from January 17, 2018 to January 24, 2018 (Dkt. 

No. 173);

WHEREAS, the deadline for Codexis’s Reply In Support Of Its Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Orders (“Reply”) was originally set for January 3, 

2018;

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2018, Codexis’s co-lead counsel with primary responsibility for 

the Reply had an urgent family emergency requiring immediate attention arise, and Codexis’s associate with additional responsibility for the Reply also had an illness arise;

WHEREAS, the parties’ counsel have met and conferred and stipulated to extending the 

deadline for Codexis’s Reply by one week;

WHEREAS, continuing the deadline for Codexis’s Reply by one week would still allow 

two weeks between the Reply and the hearing date, as originally scheduled;

WHEREAS, the deadline for Rebuttal Expert Reports is January 19, 2018, and the Expert 

Discovery Cutoff is February 16, 2018 (see Dkt. No. 157 at 11);

WHEREAS, the parties are in the process of negotiating a settlement, and the parties’ counsel have met and conferred and stipulated to vacating the deadline for Rebuttal Expert Reports, 

Case 3:16-cv-00826-WHO Document 176 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO

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

and to meeting and conferring as needed to agree upon a mutually suitable deadline if the case fails 

to settle;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AND STIPULATE to, and request a Court order, (1) continuing the deadline for Codexis’s Reply In Support of Its Omnibus 

Motion to Compel by one week to January 10, 2018 pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, 

and (2) vacating the deadline for Rebuttal Expert Reports pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a) until 

such later date as the parties agree upon.

Dated: January 3, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

By /s/ Gabriel S. Gross 

Gabriel S. Gross

Attorneys for Plaintiff CODEXIS, INC.

Dated: January 3, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

LILAW INC.

By /s/ J. James Li 

Attorneys for Defendants ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (U.S.), ENZYMEWORKS, INC. 

(China), JUNHUA TAO, and ANDREW 

TAO

ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of 

this document has been obtained from the other signatory, which shall serve in lieu of his signature.

Dated: January 3, 2018

By /s/ Gabriel S. Gross

Gabriel S. Gross 

Case 3:16-cv-00826-WHO Document 176 Filed 01/04/18 Page 3 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The deadline for Codexis’s Reply In Support Of Its Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Orders (Dkt. No. 166) is hereby reset to January 10, 2018, and the deadline for Expert Rebuttal Reports is hereby vacated, and the parties will meet and confer to reset it to a later date as needed.

Dated: ____________________

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Court Judge

US-DOCS\98053414.1

Case 3:16-cv-00826-WHO Document 176 Filed 01/04/18 Page 4 of 4