Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01097/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01097-5/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01097-EMC 

MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULE

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

Jeffrey E. Ostrow (SBN 213118) 

jostrow@stblaw.com 

Michael H. Joshi (SBN 302184) 

michael.joshi@stblaw.com 

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 

2475 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 251-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 

Noah M. Leibowitz (Pro Hac Vice) 

nleibowitz@stblaw.com 

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 

425 Lexington Avenue 

New York, New York 10017 

Telephone: (212) 455-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 455-2502 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

INTRI-PLEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; 

NHK SPRING CO., LTD.; OGAKI SEIKO CO., 

LTD.; AND SEIKO HIGH TEC CORP.

Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:17-cv-01097-EMC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER AMENDING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING 

AND HEARING SCHEDULE 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 97 Filed 04/23/18 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 1 - CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01097-EMC 

MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULE

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

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. (“IPT”) and Defendants NHK 

International Corporation, NHK Spring Co., LTD., Ogaki Seiko Co., LTD., and Seiko High Tec 

Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Based on 

Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 on April 10, 2018 (D.I. 90); 

WHEREAS, IPT’s response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently 

due on April 24, 2018; 

WHEREAS, Defendants’ reply in support of their motion for summary judgment is 

currently due on May 1, 2018; 

WHEREAS, the motion hearing has been noticed for May 24, 2018 at 1:30 pm; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to L.R. 6-2(a)(1), the parties state that they have agreed to an 

extension of the time for the opposition and reply briefing to allow time for depositions of 

declarants who provide declarations in support of the motion or opposition, and correspondingly 

have agreed to a later date for the motion hearing, at the Court’s convenience; 

WHEREAS, IPT retains all rights to argue that an issue of fact precludes summary 

judgment; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to L.R. 6-2(a)(2), the parties state that IPT previously filed an 

administrative motion regarding time to file a consent or declination to proceed before a 

magistrate judge (D.I. 17) and the parties previously extended by stipulation (1) the time for 

Defendants to answer or otherwise move in response to the complaint (D.I. 19) and (2) the time 

for the Claim Construction briefing (D.I. 68), but that no other time modification has been made 

in the case; 

 WHEREAS, pursuant to L.R. 6-2(a)(3), the parties state that they do not believe the 

requested time modification will have an effect on the remaining schedule for the case; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the 

approval of the Court, that the Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 90) briefing and hearing 

schedule is amended as follows: 

Event Date Set Forth in D.I. 90 New Date 

Response due April 24, 2018 May 8, 2018 

Reply due May 1, 2018 May 17, 2018 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 97 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 2 - CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01097-EMC 

MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULE

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

Motion hearing May 24, 2018 at 1:30 pm May 31, 2018 at 1:30 pm, or at 

the Court’s convenience 

DATED: April 20, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 

 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 

By: /s/ Jeffrey E. Ostrow 

Jeffrey E. Ostrow (SBN 213118) 

jostrow@stblaw.com 

Michael H. Joshi (SBN 302184) 

michael.joshi@stblaw.com 

2475 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 251-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 

Noah M. Leibowitz (Pro Hac Vice) 

nleibowitz@stblaw.com 

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 

425 Lexington Avenue 

New York, New York 10017 

Telephone: (212) 455-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 455-2502 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. 

DATED: April 20, 2018 SINGULARITY LLP 

By: /s/ Frank L. Bernstein 

Frank L. Bernstein (State Bar No. 189504) 

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 610 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 720-4650 

Facsimile: (650) 720-4662 

fbernstein@ipsingularity.com 

William H. Mandir (Pro Hac Vice) 

John F. Rabena (Pro Hac Vice) 

Yoshinari Kishimoto (Pro Hac Vice) 

Fadi Kiblawi (Pro Hac Vice) 

Andrew Ritter (Pro Hac Vice) 

Arun Shome (Pro Hac Vice) 

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 

2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Telephone: (202) 293-7060 

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 97 Filed 04/23/18 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 3 - CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01097-EMC 

MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULE

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

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from Frank L. Bernstein. 

/s/ Jeffrey E. Ostrow Jeffrey E. Ostrow 

 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 97 Filed 04/23/18 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 4 - CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01097-EMC 

MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULE

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED that the briefing and hearing 

schedule on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 90) is amended as follows: 

Event Date Set Forth in D.I. 90 New Date 

Response due April 24, 2018 May 8, 2018 

Reply due May 1, 2018 May 17, 2018 

Motion hearing May 24, 2018 at 1:30 pm May 31, 2018 at 1:30 pm, or at 

the Court’s convenience 

DATED: 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4/23/2018

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 97 Filed 04/23/18 Page 5 of 5