Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754-20/pdf.json

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

---

Proposed Order re Motion to Change Time 

Case No. C-06-2754 EDL 

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

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 

Devin A. McRae (Cal. Bar No. 223239) 

1717 Embarcadero Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Telephone: (650) 857-1717 

Facsimile: (650) 857-1288 

Sri K. Sankaran (Cal. Bar No. 236584) 

Kevin S. Ueland (Pro Hac Vice) 

Surya Saxena (Pro Hac Vice) 

50 South Sixth Street 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

Telephone: (612) 340-2600 

Facsimile: (612) 340-8856 

Attorneys for Defendants 

KENKO USA, INC., SOFT-GEL 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and CHEMCO 

INDUSTRIES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

USE TECHNO CORPORATION and FUTOSHI 

MATSUYAMA, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KENKO USA, INC.; SOFT-GEL 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and CHEMCO 

INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.: C 06-2754 EDL 

Before the Honorable Elizabeth D. LaPorte 

PROPOSED ORDER RE MOTION TO 

CHANGE DEADLINE TO MEET, CONFER 

AND RE-FILE MOTION TO COMPEL 

 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ request that the Court’s Order of October 18, 2007, 

be modified, and that Defendants be given until two weeks after the Court’s ruling on the two pending 

summary judgment motions (Docket No. 167 and Docket No. 174) to meet and confer with Plaintiffs 

regarding Defendants’ motion to compel, and to re-file that motion to compel, if necessary. 

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 192 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

Proposed Order re Motion to Change Time 

Case No. C-06-2754 EDL 

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

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT for good cause shown, and to reduce expense to the parties 

and to conserve the Court’s resources, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall have until 

two weeks after the Court’s ruling on the two pending summary judgment motions (Docket Nos. 167 and 

174) to meet and confer with Plaintiffs, and re-file their motion to compel, if necessary. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November _____, 2007 _______________________________ 

 The Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

9

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 192 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 2