Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04507/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04507-3/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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-4507 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 11/08/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ACTICON TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

PRETEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-4507 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 1

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF

TIME

On October 15, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining

order (“TRO”) and set a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction for November 9,

2007 at 9:00 a.m. In denying the request for the TRO, the Court indicated that the parties could

file supplemental briefs in support or opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction by

November 2, 2007. Three days before the deadline for filing the supplemental briefs, Defendants

requested a sixty (60) day extension of time for the hearing. Defendants asserted that they were

unable to obtain "a proper attorney" in time for the November 9 hearing. The Court denied

Defendants’ request in part because Defendants were represented by counsel in opposing

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF Document 26 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 07-4507 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.

(JFLC3)

Plaintiff’s request for a TRO. After the Court issued its Order, Defendants’ counsel filed a paper

with the Court entitled “Notice of Substitution of Counsel.” This paper requests that Defendants’

attorney not be placed on the email notification list in the future because she represented

Defendants for the limited purpose of defending the TRO. On November 2, 2007, Defendants

filed a second request for an extension of time, again seeking additional time to hire counsel. 

In opposing Plaintiff's motion, Defendants’ former attorney filed opposition to Plaintiff’s

request for a TRO and for preliminary injunction. To this extent, Defendants already have had

the assistance of counsel in opposing Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. Because it

denied Plaintiff's request for a TRO in part because it was prepared to hear the motion for a

preliminary injunction expeditiously and Plaintiff will be prejudiced by delay in this case, the

Court will deny Defendants' second request for an extension of time.

III. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' second

request for an extension of time is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction will

remain set for hearing on November 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

DATED: November 8, 2007

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF Document 26 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 07-4507 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.

(JFLC3)

Copies of Order served on:

cwatson@carrferrell.com 

shaoyitai@yahoo.com 

Case 5:07-cv-04507-JF Document 26 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 3