Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01122/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01122-5/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. C 04 01122 PVT (ADR)

Scott R. Mosko (State Bar No. 106070) 

E-Mail: scott.mosko@finnegan.com

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 

Stanford Research Park 

700 Hansen Way 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 849-6600 

Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 

Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

STARENT NETWORKS CORP. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UTSTARCOM, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v.

STARENT NETWORKS CORP., 

Defendant.

 CASE NO. C 04 01122 PVT 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

STARENT NETWORKS CORP., 

 Counterclaimant, 

 v. 

UTSTARCOM, INC., 

 Counter Defendant. 

Case 5:04-cv-01122-PVT Document 244 Filed 10/24/05 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

2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. C 04 01122 PVT (ADR)

1. On or about September 1, 2005, UTStarcom proposed a schedule for filing summary 

judgment papers. UTStarcom’s proposed schedule called for moving papers to be filed by 

September 20, 2005, oppositions to be filed by October 11, 2005, replies to be filed by October 25, 

2005, with a hearing date of November 8, 2005; 

2. On or about September 9, 2005, Starent communicated that it was willing to abide by 

UTStarcom’s proposed schedule for both parties’ motions for summary judgment; 

3. On October 11, UTStarcom advised Starent that UTStarcom was filing its opposition 

to Starent’s summary judgment motion that date, i.e. October 11. Starent later advised UTStarcom 

that it was under the belief that its opposition to UTStarcom’s motion for summary judgment was 

due October 18, 2005 according to the Civil Local Rules, i.e. three weeks before the noticed hearing 

of November 8, 2005; 

4. UTStarcom completed its filing of its opposition to Starent’s motion for summary 

judgment on October 11, 2005. Starent filed its opposition to UTStarcom’s motion for summary 

judgment on October 14, 2005; 

5. The parties hereby stipulate that UTStarcom may have to and including October 27, 

2005, in which to file its reply to Starent’s opposition to UTStarcom’s motion for summary 

judgment. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 5:04-cv-01122-PVT Document 244 Filed 10/24/05 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

3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. C 04 01122 PVT (ADR)

6. Scott R. Mosko obtained permission from Brian Cannon to affix his electronic 

signature to this pleading. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: October 19, 2005 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 

By: /s/ 

Scott R. Mosko 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

Starent Networks Corp. 

Dated: October 19, 2005 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 

By: /s/ 

Brian Cannon 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UTStarcom, Inc. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 UTStarcom may have to and including October 27, 2005, in which to file its reply to 

Starent’s opposition to UTStarcom’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Dated: ___________________ 

 Patricia V. Trumbull 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

10/24/05

Case 5:04-cv-01122-PVT Document 244 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 3