Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01029/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eagle Advanced Systems Engineering, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Sentech Medical Systems, Inc.
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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 

868963.1 1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. COSTELLO 

JOHN P. COSTELLO (Bar No. 161511) 

PAMELA W. BERTANI (Bar No. 182672) 

331 J Street, Suite 200 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2234 

Facsimile: (916) 441-4254 

DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

MICHAEL J. THOMAS (Bar No. 172326) 

MEGHAN M. BAKER (Bar No. 243765) 

555 Capitol Mall, Tenth Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4686 

Telephone: (916) 444-1000 

Facsimile: (916) 444-2100 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Eagle Advanced Systems Engineering, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EAGLE ADVANCED SYSTEMS 

ENGINEERING, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SENTECH MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a 

Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 

10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

___________________________________ 

SENTECH MEDICAL SYSMEMS, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, 

 Counterclaimant, 

v. 

EAGLE ADVANCED SYSTEMS 

ENGINEERING, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

 Counterdefendant. 

Case No. 2:07-CV-01029-LKK-GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 2:07-cv-01029-LKK -GGH Document 24 Filed 08/14/07 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 

868963.1 2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant EAGLE ADVANCED SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC. 

(“EASE”) and Defendant/Counter-Claimant SENTECH MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. 

(“SENTECH”) hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 

 Whereas, on May 29, 2007, EASE filed its initial Complaint in this matter. In that 

Complaint Ease alleged, among other things, that the patents in suit were invalid under 35 USC § 

112. 

 On June 22, 2007, SENTECH filed its Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims against 

EASE denying the allegations in the initial Complaint, and alleging, among other things, that 

EASE infringed the patents in suit. 

 In response to SENTECH's counterclaim, EASE filed an Answer denying the allegations 

in SENTECH's Counterclaim, and asserted a Counterclaim against SENTECH, alleging that the 

patents in suit were also invalid under 35 USC § 103. 

 In response, SENTECH has denied the allegations in EASE's Counterclaim, and has 

asserted that EASE's Counterclaim is improper in that the allegation that the patents in suit are 

invalid under 35 USC § 103 should have been asserted in EASE's initial complaint. 

 Whereas the parties disagree as to the appropriateness of EASE's Counterclaim, and the 

parties wish to resolve that disagreement and to simplify the number of pleadings in this action by 

allowing EASE to amend its initial Complaint to include EASE's allegation that the patents in suit 

are invalid under 35 USC § 103, so as to consolidate EASE's invalidity claims in a single 

pleading. 

 Whereas, discovery has not yet commenced, and no scheduling order has been entered as 

of the date of this Stipulation, the parties agree and stipulate that: 

 1. EASE should be allowed leave of Court to file its Amended Complaint, a copy of 

which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 

 2. The Amended Complaint will be deemed filed and served as of the date the Court 

signs this stipulation; and, 

 3. The Answer filed by SENTECH to the initial Complaint may serve as its Answer 

to the First Amended Complaint, thereby requiring no further response from SENTECH.; 

Case 2:07-cv-01029-LKK -GGH Document 24 Filed 08/14/07 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 

868963.1 3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

 4. Upon filing the Amended Complaint, EASE's Counterclaim (but not its Answer to 

SENTECH's Counterclaim) shall be dismissed without prejudice. 

 5. In so stipulating, SENTECH does not admit the truth of any of the allegations set 

forth in the Amended Complaint. 

DATED: August 9, 2007 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

By:________/s/Michael J. Thomas_______________ MICHAEL J. THOMAS 

Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant 

Eagle Advanced Systems Engineering, Inc. 

DATED: August 9, 2007 WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK 

By:________/s/Dale C. Campbell_________________

 DALE C. CAMPBELL 

Attorney for Defendant/Counterclaimant 

Sentech Medical Systems, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 14, 2007 

Case 2:07-cv-01029-LKK -GGH Document 24 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3