Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLERA CORPORATION-APPLIED

BIOSYSTEMS GROUP, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ILLUMINA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

SOLEA INC., a Delaware corporation, and

STEPHEN C. MACEVICZ, an individual

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02845 WHA

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION

TO CONTINUE HEARING DATES

TO JANUARY 24, 2008

The parties request to continue the hearing dates for defendant’s motion to dismiss, or

in the alternative strike, and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and motion for

partial summary judgment adjudication is DENIED. The hearing on defendant Stephen

Macevicz’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative strike portions of the first amended

complaint, will be moved to JANUARY 10, 2008. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion to dismiss

for lack of standing, and motion for partial summary adjudication will remain as schedule on

January 10, 2008. Given that most cases settle before trial, the Court is reluctant to grant a

continuance on the grounds that defense counsel may be in trial in four weeks. If it turns out

that defense counsel is in trial in four weeks, the Court will consider moving the hearings. In

the mean time, there is no reason why briefing on these matters should not go forward. 

Counsel should keep in mind the Court’s preference to give young lawyers, who prepared the

briefs for a hearing, an opportunity to argue in court. In all events, briefing on this case should

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 68 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

continue in order to give the Court the proper time to digest the voluminous materials

submitted by the parties. Accordingly, in regards to defendant’s motion to strike, plaintiff’s

opposition will be due on DECEMBER 20, 2007, and defendant’s reply will be due on

DECEMBER 27, 2007. In regards to plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and motion for partial

summary adjudication, defendants’ opposition will remain due on DECEMBER 20, 2007, and

plaintiff’s response will remain due on DECEMBER 27, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 68 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2