Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02927/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02927-8/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 REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 04-2927 JW HRL 

[COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

TELESHUTTLE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 

TELESHUTTLE CORPORATION, and 

BTG INTERNATIONAL INC., 

Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants,

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

Defendant, Counterclaimant. 

 CASE NO. C 04-2927 JW HRL 

STIPULATION REGARDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR 

PHILLIPS DECISION; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 114 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 1 of 3
 Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 115 Filed 07/22/05 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 REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 04-2927 JW HRL

Plaintiffs Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC, Teleshuttle Corporation, and BTG International, 

Inc, and Defendant Microsoft Corporation, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate that, 

with the Court’s permission, Plaintiffs may have two weeks to file a response to Microsoft’s brief 

regarding the Federal Circuit’s decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., Nos. 03-1260, 1286 (July 12, 

2005). Given that Microsoft’s brief is due on July 22, 2005, that would provide Plaintiffs until 

August 5, 2005.

On July 15, 2005, Microsoft filed its unopposed motion for administrative relief seeking 

permission to file a brief of up to fifteen pages regarding the Phillips decision. Plaintiffs had 

previously advised that, in principle, they would not oppose such a request provided they were given 

an opportunity to file a responsive brief on Phillips. However, the parties had not discussed a 

deadline for Plaintiffs’ responsive brief. Because of a pre-existing planned vacation by Plaintiffs’ 

counsel, and because of Microsoft’s counsel’s agreement to an extension, Plaintiffs respectfully 

request that they be provided two weeks to respond to Microsoft’s brief on the Phillips decision. 

By his signature below, counsel for plaintiffs affirms that counsel for Microsoft concurred in 

the filing of this document. 

Dated: July 21, 2005 

By: s/_____________________________

Robert F. McCauley, (State Bar No. 162056) 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 

Stanford Research Park 

700 Hansen Way 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 849-6600 

Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

TELESHUTTLE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 

TELESHUTTLE CORPORATION, and 

BTG INTERNATIONAL INC. 

Dated: July 21, 2005 

By: s/_____________________________

Michael J. Bettinger (State Bar No. 122196) 

Timothy P. Walker (State Bar No. 105001) 

Elaine Y. Chow (State Bar No. 194063) 

PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP 

55 Second Street, Suite 1700 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 882-8200 

Facsimile: (415) 882-8220 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION 

 

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 114 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 2 of 3
 Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 115 Filed 07/22/05 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 REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

CASE NO: C 04-2927 JW HRL

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs may have until August 5, 2005, to file a response to Microsoft’s brief 

on the Phillips decision. 

Date: The Honorable James Ware 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 114 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 3 of 3

July 22, 2005 /s/ James Ware

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 115 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 3