Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04833/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04833-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE DOC. SUPPL.

CASE NO. C-02-4833-JF 

2676375_1.DOC 

ROBERT P. FELDMAN, State Bar No. 69602 

JENNIFER A. OCHS, State Bar No. 174069 

MAURA L. REES, State Bar No. 191698 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

rfeldman@wsgr.com; jochs@wsgr.com; 

mrees@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimant 

TOWNSHEND INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY, L.L.C.

and BRENT TOWNSHEND 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE TOWNSHEND PATENT LITIGATION )

)

Master File No.: C-02-4833 JF (PVT) 

This document relates to: 

ESS TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California 

corporation,

Plaintiff, 

v.

BRENT TOWNSHEND, an individual, and 

TOWNSHEND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

L.L.C., a California L.L.C., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

This document relates to: C-01-1300-

JF(PVT)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTATION 

OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES 

PURSUANT TO JUNE 6, 2005 

ORDER

TOWNSHEND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

L.L.C., a California L.L.C., 

Counterclaimant, 

v.

ESS TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California 

corporation,

Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Room: Courtroom 5, 4th floor 

Before: Hon. Patricia Trumbull 

XXXXXXXXXXX

Case 5:02-cv-04833-JF Document 452 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 3
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

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE DOC. SUPPL.

CASE NO. C-02-4833-JF

-1- 2676375_1.DOC 

WHEREAS, the Court’s Order dated June 6, 2005 directed ESS Technology and 

Townshend to submit either a stipulated form of order, or else their respective proposed forms 

of order, setting forth the intervals at which each party shall supplement its discovery responses; 

and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), a 

reasonable interval at which to supplement their respective discovery responses would be every 

two months; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Townshend and ESS will supplement their respective responses to each others’ 

discovery, should such supplementation be necessary, on August 31, 2005 and October 21, 

2005.

Dated: June 30, 2005 By: /s/ Maura L. Rees ___________

Robert P. Feldman 

Jennifer A. Ochs

Maura L. Rees

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

TOWNSHEND INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY LLC 

Dated: June 30, 2005 By: /s/ Anupam Sharma ______

James Pooley 

L. Scott Oliver 

MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY 

LLP

3000 El Camino Real 

Five Palo Alto Square, 7th Floor 

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2109 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ESS TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

USDC Case No. C-01-1300 JF 

Case 5:02-cv-04833-JF Document 452 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 3
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

STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE DOC. SUPPL.

CASE NO. C-02-4833-JF

-2- 2676375_1.DOC 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________________ ___________________________________

Hon. Patricia V, Trumbull 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 7/5/05 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull

Case 5:02-cv-04833-JF Document 452 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 3