Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00544/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00544-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

CLIFF A. MAIER (#248858)

cmaier@mayerbrown.com

MAYER BROWN LLP

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300

3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112

Telephone: (650) 331-2000

Facsimile: (650) 331-2060

Attorneys for Defendants Avago Technologies

General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Inc., Avago

Technologies ECBU IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Inc.,

and Avago Technologies USA, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PixArt Imaging Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore)

Pte. Ltd., Inc., Avago Technologies ECBU IP

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Inc., and Avago

Technologies USA, Inc.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00544-HRL

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

REQUEST PURSUANT TO LOCAL

RULE 6-2 FOR ORDER CHANGING

TIME

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 and 7-11 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), Plaintiff PixArt Imaging Inc.

(“PixArt”) and Defendants Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Inc., Avago

Technologies ECBU IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Inc., and Avago Technologies USA, Inc.

(collectively “Avago,” and along with PixArt, “Parties”) jointly submitted a request that the

Court enter an order setting the time for filing an Opposition to PixArt’s Administrative Motion

to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (“Administrative Motion”) and extending the

time for Avago to move, answer, or otherwise respond to PixArt’s Complaint For Declaratory

Judgment (“Complaint”).

Having considered the Parties stipulated request and the declaration submitted in support

JW (HRL) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge James Ware

2/25/2010

Case 5:10-cv-00544-JW Document 16 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 2
2

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

thereof, the Court hereby GRANTS the stipulated request and makes the following order:

For the reasons set forth in the stipulated motion and supporting declaration and for good

cause shown, the Court ORDERS that any response by Avago to PixArt’s Administrative Motion

to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related be filed by February 23, 2010, and that the time

for Avago to move, answer, or otherwise respond to PixArt’s Complaint For Declaratory

Judgment is extended to March 31, 2010.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

__________________________________________

Honorable Howard R. Lloyd

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge

 

 James Ware District February 25, 2010 

Case 5:10-cv-00544-JW Document 16 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2