Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Intel Corporation v. Wi-Lan, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00184 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009)

Granted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00184, Dkt. No. 29
Decided
January 12, 2009
Judge
James Ware, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time To Respond to Respond to Complaint re 28 Stipulation filed by Wi-Lan, Inc. Deadline to respond due 1/15/2009
Length
2 pages

1 TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP

Daniel J. Furniss (State Bar No. 73531) 2

A. James Isbester (State Bar No. 129820)

Two Embarcadero Center Eighth Floor 3

San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 576-0200 4

Facsimile: (415) 576-0300 5 Email: djfurniss@townsend.com

jisbester@townsend.com 6

Attorneys for specially appearing defendants 7

Wi-LAN, Inc., Wi-LAN Technologies Corporation, Wi-LAN Technologies, Inc., 8

and Wi-LAN V-Chip Corp. 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12 13 Case No. C 08-CV-04555 JW

INTEL CORPORATION,

14 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

Plaintiffs,

EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO

15 AMENDED COMPLAINT

v. 16

WI-LAN, INC., WI-LAN TECHNOLOGIES

17

CORPORATION, WI-LAN

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and WI-LAN V-18

CHIP CORP.,

19

Defendants. 20 21 22 Specially appearing defendants Wi-LAN, Inc., Wi-LAN Technologies Corporation, Wi-23 LAN Technologies, Inc., and Wi-LAN V-Chip Corp, by and through their counsel, request that 24 defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint herein be extended 25 until January 15, 2009. 26 This stipulated request is made on the grounds that defendants require the additional time 27 in which to prepare appropriate responses. The complaint in this case was filed on September 30,2 2008. Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint has been previously extended by Order dated 2

October 27, 2008. Plaintiff Intel Corporation does not oppose defendants' request. 3 So stipulated,

4 5 Dated: December 31, 2008 TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP 6

By: /S/ 7

A. James Isbester (SBN 129820)

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND

8

CREW LLP

9 Two Embarcadero Center Eighth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111 10 Telephone: (415) 576-0200

Facsimile: (415) 576-0300 11

Email: jisbester@townsend.com 12

Attorneys for specially appearing defendants 13 Wi-LAN, Inc., Wi-LAN Technologies,

Corporation, Wi-LAN Technologies, Inc., and 14

Wi-LAN V-Chip Corp. 15

Dated: December 31, 2008 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 16 17 By: /S/

Adam R. Alper (SBN 196834) 18

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

555 California Street

19

San Francisco, California 94104-1501 Telephone: (415) 439-1876 20

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 21 Email: aalper@kirkland.com 22

Attorneys for plaintiff Intel Corporation 23 Upon the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor, it is SO ORDERED. 24 25 January 12 9

Dated: ________________, 200__ By: 26

United States District Court Judge 27

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Intel Corporation v. Wi-Lan, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00184 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00184-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00184-1

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.