Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04697/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04697-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

 JOINT STIP. RE RESPONSE TO SAC

CASE NO. C 09-04697-CW (EDL) 

DAVID ENZMINGER (S.B. #137065)

 denzminger@omm.com 

ERIC J. AMDURSKY (S.B. #180288) 

 eamdursky@omm.com 

PETER T. SNOW (S.B. #222117) 

 psnow@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

2765 Sand Hill Road 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 473-2600 

Facsimile: (650) 473-2601 

JILLIAN R. WEADER (S.B. #251311) 

 jweader@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

2 Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 984-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 

Attorneys for Defendants 

DEVICEVM, INC. a Delaware corporation, and 

BENEDICT CHONG, an individual

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., a 

Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEVICEVM, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

and BENEDICT CHONG, an individual, 

Defendants. 

DEVICEVM, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

Counterclaimant, 

v. 

PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., a 

Delaware corporation, 

Counterclaim-defendant. 

CASE NO. C 09-04697-CW (EDL)

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING RESPONSE TO SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Judge: Hon. Claudia A. Wilken 

Trial Date: None Set 

Case 4:09-cv-04697-CW Document 108 Filed 03/26/10 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 - JOINT STIP. RE RESPONSE TO SAC

CASE NO. C 09-04697-CW (EDL) 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, on October 1, 2009, Defendant/Counterclaimant DeviceVM, Inc. 

(“DeviceVM”) and Defendant Benedict Chong (“Chong”) (collectively, “Defendants”) removed 

this action from Santa Clara County Superior Court to this Court in the Northern District of 

California (Doc. No. 1); 

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2010, DeviceVM filed Amended Counterclaims against 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Phoenix Technologies, Ltd. (“Phoenix”), including a claim for 

patent infringement (Doc. No. 63); 

WHEREAS, on February 4, 2010, Phoenix filed a separate action in the Northern District 

of California, San Jose Division, for patent infringement against DeviceVM (see Case No. 

10cv00514); 

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, Defendants and Phoenix filed a stipulation and proposed 

order (the “Stipulation”) agreeing that Phoenix would dismiss its separate patent suit against 

DeviceVM without prejudice and file a Second Amended Complaint in the instant case, which 

would include Phoenix’s patent claim (Doc. No. 100); 

WHEREAS, the Stipulation provided that Phoenix would file the Second Amended 

Complaint within five days of the Court entering an Order granting the Stipulation, and that 

Defendants would respond to the Second Amended Complaint by March 19, 2010; 

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2010, the Court entered an Order approving the Stipulation as 

submitted by the parties (Doc. No. 104); 

WHEREAS, because the due date for Defendants’ responses to the Second Amended 

Complaint under the Court’s Order granting the Stipulation has already passed, but Phoenix has 

not yet filed the Second Amended Complaint, the parties have agreed that Defendants should 

have five days from the filing of the Second Amended Complaint to file their responses; 

Case 4:09-cv-04697-CW Document 108 Filed 03/26/10 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 - JOINT STIP. RE RESPONSE TO SAC

CASE NO. C 09-04697-CW (EDL) 

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties hereby stipulate and agree, and respectfully 

request that the Court enter an Order, as follows: 

1. Defendants’ deadline to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Second 

Amended Complaint shall be within five (5) of the date of its filing with the Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: March 23, 2010 DAVID ENZMINGER

ERIC J. AMDURSKY 

PETER T. SNOW 

JILLIAN R. WEADER 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

By: /s/ 

Peter T. Snow 

Attorneys for Defendants 

DeviceVM, Inc. and Benedict Chong 

Dated: March 23, 2010 KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN

BRYAN J. SINCLAIR 

K&L GATES LLP 

By: /s/ 

Karineh Khachatourian 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Phoenix Technologies Ltd. 

I, Peter T. Snow, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this 

stipulation and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45, X B, I hereby attest that 

Karineh Khachatourian has concurred in this filing. 

 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

By: /s/ 

Peter T. Snow 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 3/26/2010 By: 

The Honorable Claudia A. Wilken 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04697-CW Document 108 Filed 03/26/10 Page 3 of 3