Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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 PROPOSED] ORDER RE EMERGENCY MOTION RE RELIEF FROM LOCAL RULES Case No. CIV S-03-1329 WBS PAN

SF\73120.1 1

Daniel J. Herling (SBN 103711)

Lina M. Brenner (SBN 191075)

DUANE MORRIS LLP

One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 371-2200

Facsimile: (415) 371-2201

Richard T. Redano (pro hac vice)

Gary R. Maze (pro hac vice)

One Greenway Plaza, Suite 500

Houston, TX 77046

Telephone: (713) 964-7700

Facsimile: (713) 964-7701

Attorneys for Defendant

THOMSON, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY LICENSING )

CORPORATION, a California )

Corporation ) Case No. CIV S-03-1329 WBS PAN 

)

Plaintiff, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT

) THOMSON, INC.'S EMERGENCY MOTION

vs. ) SEEKING RELIEF FROM LOCAL RULES

) GOVERNING SERVICE OF MOTIONS

THOMSON, INC., a Delaware )

Corporation ) JUDGE: The Hon. William B. Shubb

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

/ / / / 

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 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 PROPOSED] ORDER RE EMERGENCY MOTION RE RELIEF FROM LOCAL RULES Case No. CIV S-03-1329 WBS PAN

SF\73120.1 2

Having reviewed Defendant Thomson, Inc.'s ("Thomson") Emergency Motion Seeking Relief From

Local Rules Governing Service of Motions, and having entertained any and all opposition to same, the Court

finds as follows:

Given that plaintiff Technology Licensing Corporation's counsel received electronic notice and

service of Thomson's Motion Seeking An Extension of Time To File Rebuttal Expert Reports (the "Motion")

on April 4, 2005, the day on which such Motion was filed, and twenty-eight (28) days prior to the scheduled

hearing date of May 2, 2005, the Court will permit the Motion to be heard on the latter date. 

Because a copy of the motion pleadings was sent to plaintiff’s counsel by mail rather than by

personal service in accordance with the requirements of Local Rule 78-230(b) on April 4, 2005, plaintiff’s

counsel is given an additional three court days to file its opposition to the motion. Given such additional

time, the Court finds that plaintiff’s counsel has not been prejudiced, and that it would serve judicial and

party economy were the Court to permit the Motion to be heard on May 2, 2005, given that the parties will

already be appearing before the Court concerning another motion filed by the plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: April 15, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 2