Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01940/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01940-15/pdf.json

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

---

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 STIPULATION EXTENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON RADVISION MOTION

CASE NO. C 05-01940 MHP

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

GEORGE M. NEWCOMBE (202898) gnewcombe@stblaw.com

JEFFREY E. OSTROW (213118) jostrow@stblaw.com

HARRISON J. FRAHN IV (206822) hfrahn@stblaw.com

2550 Hanover Street

Palo Alto, California 94304

Telephone: (650) 251-5000

Facsimile: (650) 251-5002

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant

COLLABORATION PROPERTIES, INC.

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

ELIZABETH I. ROGERS (226234) elizabeth.rogers@wilmerhale.com

1117 California Avenue

Palo Alto, California 94304

Telephone: (650) 858-6000

Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

Attorneys for Third-Party RADVISION, Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

COLLABORATION PROPERTIES, INC., a 

Nevada corporation,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v. 

TANDBERG ASA, and TANDBERG, INC., a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 05-01940 MHP

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 

RADVISION MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Before: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 of the Federal District Court for the Northern 

District of California, Collaboration Properties, Inc. (“CPI”) and Third-Party RADVISION, Ltd. 

(“RADVISION”), by and through their respective counsel, submit this Joint Stipulation.

Case 3:05-cv-01940-MHP Document 226 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 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

JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON RADVISION MOTION

CASE NO. C 05-01940 MHP 2

WHEREAS, CPI and RADVISION believe they may be able to informally resolve 

Third-Party RADVISION, Ltd.’s Motion for Protective Order (“Motion”) by September 7, 2006; 

and

WHEREAS, RADVISION’s reply in support of its Motion (“Reply”) is currently 

due on September 4, 2006;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 

between counsel for the undersigned parties as follows:

RADVISION’s reply will be due on September 7, 2006.

Dated: September 1, 2006 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

By: ________________________________

 HARRISON J. FRAHN IV

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

COLLABORATION PROPERTIES, INC.

Dated: September 1, 2006 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 

HALE AND DORR LLP

By: _______/s/_________________________

 ELIZABETH I. ROGERS

Attorneys for Third-Party RADVISION, Ltd.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September ______, 2006

___________________________________

Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Court Judge

6

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:05-cv-01940-MHP Document 226 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2