Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02628/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02628-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

WHITE 

&

CASE LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

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 REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 

CASE NO: 3:16-cv-02628-JST

BIJAL V. VAKIL (CA State Bar No. 192878)

bvakil@whitecase.com 

ALLEN WANG (CA State Bar No. 278953) 

awang@whitecase.com 

WHITE & CASE LLP 

3000 El Camino Real 

Five Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor 

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2109 

Telephone: (650) 213-0300 

Facsimile: (650) 213-8158 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Google Inc. 

Jonathan Baker (CA State Bar No. 196062) 

FARNEY DANIELS PC 

411 Borel Avenue, Suite 350 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (424) 278-5200 

jbaker@farneydaniels.com 

Counsel for Creative Labs, Inc. 

and Creative Technology Ltd. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

GOOGLE INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CREATIVE LABS, INC. and 

CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02628-JST

STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT 

OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT AND 

RESCHEDULING THE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

PURSUANT TO L.R. 6-2 

Case 3:16-cv-02628-JST Document 14 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 3
WHITE 

&

CASE LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

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 

 - 1 - 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 

CASE NO: 3:16-cv-02628-JST

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 

7-12, counsel for Google, Inc. (“Google”) and counsel for Creative Labs, Inc. and Creative 

Technology Ltd. have met and conferred regarding an extension of time for the Creative entities 

to respond to the Complaint. 

Creative Labs, Inc. was served with the Summons and Complaint on June 9, 2016, with a 

response originally due on June 30, 2016. 

Creative Technology Ltd. is based in Singapore. As Singapore is not a signatory to the 

Hague Service Convention, Singapore-based entities may be served only through Letters 

Rogatory or private process service. For efficiency, to improve judicial economy, to give 

Creative Technology Ltd. fair and adequate time to file its answer or otherwise respond to the 

Complaint, and to alleviate the burden of serving a foreign entity, the parties agree to have the 

response from both Creative Labs, Inc. and Creative Technology Ltd. due on the same date, and 

have further agreed to a 75-day extension. Counsel for Creative has agreed to accept service for 

Creative Technology Ltd. No party will be prejudiced by this extension. 

The parties hereby jointly stipulate, agree, and request an order from the Court as follows: 

1. Creative Labs, Inc. and Creative Technology Ltd. shall have up to and including 

September 13, 2016 to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. 

2. The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for August , 2016 shall 

be rescheduled to 6HSWHPEHU

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: June 29, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Bijal V. Vakil 

 Bijal V. Vakil 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Google Inc. 

Case 3:16-cv-02628-JST Document 14 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 3
WHITE 

&

CASE LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

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 REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 

CASE NO: 3:16-cv-02628-JST

By: /s/ Jonathan D. Baker 

 Jonathan D. Baker 

Attorney for Defendants 

Creative Labs, Inc. and 

Creative Technology Ltd. 

ATTESTATION FOR SIGNATURE 

 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory. 

Dated: June 29, 2016 /s/ Bijal V. Vakil 

 Bijal V. Vakil 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: __________________ 

 Hon. Jon S. Tigar, U.S.D.J. 

June 29, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02628-JST Document 14 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 3