Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05387/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05387-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

CASE NO. C06 05387 44031218

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 

MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP 

IAN FEINBERG (SBN 88324) 

ERIC B. EVANS (SBN 232476) 

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Telephone: (650) 331-2000 

Facsimile: (650) 331-4555 

ifeinberg@mayerbrownrowe.com 

Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, and 

Third-Party Plaintiff 

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

HEIDELBERGER DRUCKMASCHINEN AG, 

a German Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 

a Delaware Corporation, 

 Defendant, 

Civil Action No. C 06-5387 RMW (RSx) 

STIPULATION AND 

ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 

a Delaware Corporation, 

Counterclaimant, 

 v. 

HEIDELBERGER DRUCKMASCHINEN AG, 

a German Corporation, 

 

 Counterdefendant, 

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 

a Delaware Corporation, 

Third-party Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LINOTYPE GmbH, 

 a German Corporation, 

 Third-party Defendant. 

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 9 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 3
 

 -2- 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

CASE NO. C06 05387 

44031218 

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 

Pursuant to Local Rules 7-12 and 16-2, Defendant, Counterclaimant, and Third-party 

Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated (“Adobe”) and Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant 

Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (“Heidelberger”) respectfully request that this Court enter an 

order continuing the Initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”) until February 9, 2007. 

This extension is to allow time for service of Third-party Defendant Linotype GmbH 

(“Linotype”), a German corporation, pursuant to The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad 

of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters together with 

Germany’s reservations therefrom (“Hague Service Convention”). 

Good cause exists for this Court to continue the CMC for at least the following reasons: 

(1) Heidelberger filed the complaint in this action (“the Complaint”) on August 31, 2006; 

(2) Heidelberger served the Complaint on Adobe on September 20, 2006; 

(3) As the basis for its claims against Adobe, Heidelberger alleges that Linotype assigned 

its claims against Adobe that accrued through March 31, 2006 to Heidelberger; 

(4) Adobe answered the Complaint, brought counterclaims against Heidelberger, and 

brought third-party claims against Linotype on October 30, 2006; 

(5) Adobe believes that the parties’ rights cannot be fully adjudicated until Linotype is 

joined in this action because Linotype remains a party to the agreements upon which 

Heidelberger’s claim is based and, unless joined, this Court’s interpretation of these 

agreements might not be binding on Linotype; 

(6) Linotype, as a German corporation, must be served pursuant to the Hague Service 

Convention; 

(7) Under the Hague Service Convention, as it applies in Germany, all documents to be 

served must be translated into German and personally served by the relevant Hague 

Service Convention Authority; and 

(8) Service of Linotype under the Hague Service Convention may not occur until after 

the date set for the CMC in this Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines; 

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 9 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 3
 

 -3- 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

CASE NO. C06 05387 

44031218 

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 

(9) Counsel for Adobe and Heidelberger have conferred, as required by Civil L.R. 16-

2(d)(2), and affirm that both Adobe and Heidelberger support this request for relief. 

November 28, 2006 MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP 

Ian N. Feinberg 

Eric B. Evans 

By:U /s/ U

Ian N. Feinberg 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED 

November 28, 2006 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & 

HAMPTON LLP 

Steven B. Sacks 

M. Elizabeth McDaniel 

David DeGroot 

By:U /s/ U

Steven B. Sacks 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

HEIDELBERGER DRUCKMASCHINEN 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), Ian Feinberg hereby 

attests that the signatories’ concurrences in the filing of this document have been obtained. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

The CMC is continued until February 9, 2007 @ 10:30 a.m. 

As set forth in this Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and 

Deadlines, all other deadlines are continued accordingly. 

DATED: _________________________ ________________________________ 

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 9 Filed 12/05/06 Page 3 of 3