Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01785/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01785-2/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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

POSTPONE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULES 

CASE NO. C04-01785 RMW 

2809985_1.DOC 

Keaton S. Parekh, State Bar No. 214396 

Jimmy M. Shin, State Bar No. 200161 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 

Telephone: 650-813-5000 

Facsimile: 650-813-5100 

jshin@mwe.com

Mark G. Davis (Pro Hac Vice) 

D. Sean Trainor (Pro Hac Vice) 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

600 13th Street, N.W. 

Washington D. C. 20005-3096 

Telephone: 202-756-8000 

Facsimile: 202-756-8087 

Ron E. Shulman, State Bar No. 178263 

Terry Kearney, State Bar No. 160054 

Michael B. Levin, State Bar No. 172329 

Christopher Parry, State Bar No. 209858 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & 

ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94303-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

cparry@wsgr.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

TREND MICRO INCORPORATED 

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant 

FORTINET, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

TREND MICRO INCORPORATED, a California corporation; 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FORTINET, INC., a Delaware Corporation; 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. C04-01785 RMW 

STIPULATION AND 

ORDER TO POSTPONE CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING AND 

HEARING AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

BRIEFING 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Trend Micro Incorporated (“Trend Micro”) and 

Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and 

respectfully request postponement of the claim construction hearing and briefing, and the hearing 

for Fortinet’s motion for partial summary judgment and briefing, currently in place in this 

proceeding. 

Case 5:04-cv-01785-RMW Document 52 Filed 02/06/06 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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

POSTPONE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULES 

CASE NO. C04-01785 RMW

-2- 2809985_1.DOC 

 Pursuant to the Case Management Order, the Court is currently scheduled to hold a claim 

construction hearing in the above-captioned action on February 14, 2006. Fortinet has also 

noticed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 

(“motion for partial summary judgment”) to be heard on the same date as the claim construction 

hearing. Pursuant to the parties’ prior request, on January 26, 2006 the Court extended the time 

for the briefing on claim construction and Fortinet’s motion for partial summary judgment, but 

did not adjust the hearing dates. 

On January 27, 2006 the parties executed a settlement agreement that is expected to fully 

and finally resolve this action. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties anticipate filing a 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order of Dismissal with prejudice after certain terms of the 

agreement have been met. The parties anticipate filing the stipulation of dismissal within the 

next three weeks. 

To avoid the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources, Trend Micro and Fortinet 

hereby jointly request that the dates for the claim construction hearing and remaining related 

briefing, as well as the dates for the hearing on Fortinet’s motion for partial summary judgment 

and remaining related briefing, be vacated and that this action be stayed pending the filing of the 

stipulation of dismissal. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

//

Case 5:04-cv-01785-RMW Document 52 Filed 02/06/06 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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

POSTPONE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULES 

CASE NO. C04-01785 RMW

-3- 2809985_1.DOC 

Dated: January 31, 2006 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

By: /s/ 

Jimmy M. Shin 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Trend Micro Incorporated 

Dated: January 31, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ 

Christopher Parry 

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant 

 Fortinet, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________________________ 

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, 

I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained 

from Jimmy M. Shin. 

Dated: January 31, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ 

Christopher Parry 

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant 

Fortinet, Inc. 

Case 5:04-cv-01785-RMW Document 52 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 3