Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04615/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04615-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

JOINT STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO AND HEARING OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

Case No. C05-04615 JF (HRL)ı

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

Katherine D. Prescott (CSB No. 215496/prescott@fr.com)

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

500 Arguello St., Suite 500

Redwood City, CA 94063

Telephone: (650) 839-5070

Facsimile: (650) 839-5071

Nagendra Setty (Admitted Pro Hac Vice/setty@fr.com)

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1230 Peachtree Street, 19th Floor

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Telephone: (404) 892-5005

Facsimile: (404) 892-5002

Attorneys for Plaintiff

AIRDEFENSE, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN JOSE DIVISION)

AIRDEFENSE, INC., a Georgia corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-04615 JF (HRL)

JOINT STIPULATION FOR

MODIFICATION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO AND HEARING OF MOTION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective

counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), that Plaintiff AirDefense, Inc.’s last day to respond to

Defendant Airtight Network, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint shall be February 6, 2006, and

that the hearing on Airtight Network’s motion shall be rescheduled from February 10, 2006, to

March 3, 2006.

/ / /

/ / /

**E-filed 1/19/06**

Case 5:05-cv-04615-JF Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

JOINT STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO AND HEARING OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

Case No. C05-04615 JF (HRL)ı

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

Dated: January 13, 2006

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Katherine D. Prescott___________

Katherine D. Prescott

Attorneys for Plaintiff

AIRDEFENSE, INC.

Dated: January 13, 2006

WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH, & ROSATI

By: __/s/ Tait Graves_______________________

Tait Graves

Attorneys for Defendant

AIRTIGHT NETWORK, INC.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________

The Honorable Jeremy Fogel

United States District Court Judge

DECLARATION

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under

penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Tait

Graves.

Dated: January 13, 2006 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By:

Katherine D. Prescott

Attorneys for Plaintiff

AIRDEFENSE, INC.

50323441.doc

1/19/06

Case 5:05-cv-04615-JF Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2