Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361-3/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSE 

Case No. C 06 2361 WHA 379832.01

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

Jeffrey R. Chanin (No. 103649) 

Daralyn J. Durie (No. 169825) 

Dorothy McLaughlin (No. 229453) 

Kevin T. Reed (No. 240799) 

Email: jrc@kvn.com 

ddurie@kvn.com 

amb@kvn.com 

kreed@kvn.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,

Netflix, Inc. 

ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP 

Marshall B. Grossman (No. 35958) 

William J. O'Brien (No. 99526) 

Tony D. Chen (No. 176635) 

Dominique N. Thomas (No. 231464) 

The Water Garden 

1620 26th Street 

Fourth Floor, North Tower 

Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 

Telephone: 310-907-1000 

Facsimile: 310-907-2000 

Email: mgrossman@agsk.com 

wobrien@agsk.com 

tchen@agsk.com 

dthomas@agsk.com 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, 

Blockbuster Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, DOES 1-50, 

Defendant.

 AND RELATED COUNTER ACTION. 

Case No. C 06 2361 WHA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE

RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIMS 

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 41 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 42 Filed 09/11/06 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

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSE CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA 

379832.01

WHEREAS, Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) and Blockbuster, Inc. (“Blockbuster”) (collectively,

“the Parties”) have previously stipulated that Blockbuster shall have until twenty (20) days after 

the Court entered its Order on Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Bifurcate and 

Stay Defendant Blockbuster’s Antitrust Counterclaims and to Strike Affirmative Defenses of 

Unenforceability and Patent Misuse (the “Motion to Dismiss”) to file its Answer and 

Counterclaims to Netflix’s First Amended Complaint; 

WHEREAS, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Netflix’s reply to 

Blockbuster’s counterclaims filed on June 13, 2006 would be due ten (10) days after Netflix 

received notice of the Court’s entry its Order denying the Motion to Dismiss; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is unnecessary for Netflix to file a reply to 

Blockbuster’s current counterclaims, as Blockbuster intends to file another Answer and 

Counterclaims in response to Netflix’s First Amended Complaint, as set forth above, 

THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate that Netflix shall not be required to file any reply to 

Blockbuster’s Answer and Counterclaims that were filed on June 13, 2006. Instead, Netflix shall 

file its response to Blockbuster’s Answer and Counterclaims in response to Netflix’s First 

Amended Complaint within the time provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2). 

DATED: September 6, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

 BY:________/s/_____________

 Eugene M. Paige 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant 

 Netflix, Inc. 

DATED: September 6, 2006 ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP 

 BY:________/s/_____________

 William J. O’Brien 

 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff 

 Blockbuster, Inc. 

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 41 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 3 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 42 Filed 09/11/06 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

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSE CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA 

379832.01

 I hereby attest, pursuant to section X of General Order 45, that concurrence in the filing 

of this document has been obtained from William J. O’Brien, Esq., Attorney for the Defendant 

and Counterclaim-Plaintiff. 

Dated: September 6, 2006 By: /s/ Eugene M. Paige__________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated:

 _____________________________________

HON. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 41 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 3

September 11, 2006 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 42 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 3