Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00119/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00119-20/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-00119-HSG 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CHANGE THE

COORDINATED CASE SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 136

Pending before the Court is Defendant Dropbox, Inc.’s motion to change the coordinated 

case schedule. Dkt. No. 136 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (“Synchronoss”)

has filed its opposition. Dkt. No. 138. Dropbox requests that the Court enter a revised schedule 

for the Markman process to provide time for Synchronoss to supplement its infringement 

contentions by September 8, 2017. Mot. at 5. Dropbox argues that “[c]ourts in this district 

regularly delay claim construction deadlines where a plaintiff has failed to timely provide nondeficient infringement contentions.” Id. at 4. There has been no such showing here, nor has 

Dropbox even raised this issue before the assigned discovery magistrate judge. No good cause 

having been shown to change the coordinated case schedule, Dropbox’s motion is DENIED.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is 

deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

8/15/2017

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 139 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 1