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. May 26, 2009)

Granted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00184, Dkt. No. 194
Decided
May 26, 2009
Judge
Howard R. Lloyd, M.J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 193 continuing hearings on Motions to Compel from June 16, 2009 until Aug. 18, 2009
Length
4 pages

* E-filed 05/26/2009 * Robert A. Cote (admitted pro hac vice) rcote@mckoolsmith.com 2 Gayle Rosenstein Klein (State Bar No. 237975)

gklein@mckoolsmith.com 3 MCKOOL SMITH P.C.

399 Park Avenue, Suite 3200 4

New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 402-9400 5

Facsimile: (212) 402-9444 6

Michael G. McManus (admitted pro hac vice) 7 mmcmanus@mckoolsmith.com

MCKOOL SMITH P.C.

8

1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20006 9

Telephone (202) 370-8300 10 Facsimile: (202) 370-8344 11 ATTORNEYS FOR SPECIALLY APPEARING

DEFENDANT WI-LAN INC.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 SAN JOSE DIVISION

15 INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:08-cv-4555 JW (HRL) 16 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING 17 v.

HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO

COMPEL UNTIL AUGUST 18, 2009

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

CORPORATION, WI-LAN TECHNOLOGIES,

19 INC., and WI-LAN V-CHIP CORP., Date: August 18, 2009

Time: 10:00 a.m.

20 Defendants.

Courtroom: 2

Magistrate Judge: Hon. Howard R. Lloyd 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Austin 51116v1

21 Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties respectfully request that the hearings for 2 Wi-LAN Inc.’s (“Wi-LAN”) April 17, 2009 Motion to Compel Discovery and Intel 3 Corporation’s (“Intel”) April 10, 2009 Motion to Compel Discovery Relevant to Wi-LAN’s 4 Motion to Dismiss/Transfer be continued from June 16, 2009, to August 18, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., 5 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. This stipulation is hereby filed before the 6 deadline for Plaintiff Intel’s opposition or Defendant Wi-LAN’s opposition, and neither Intel nor 7 Wi-LAN has yet filed an opposition to either motion. 8 So stipulated, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

3Dated: May 22, 2009 By: /s/ Michael G. McManus Robert A. Cote (admitted pro hac vice)

rcote@mckoolsmith.com 2

Gayle Rosenstein Klein 3 (State Bar No. 237975)

gklein@mckoolsmith.com 4 MCKOOL SMITH P.C.

399 Park Avenue, Suite 3200 5

New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 402-9400 6

Facsimile: (212) 402-9444 7

Michael G. McManus 8

(admitted pro hac vice) mmcmanus@mckoolsmith.com 9

MCKOOL SMITH P.C.

1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 740 10

Washington, D.C. 20006 11 Telephone (202) 370-8300

Facsimile: (202) 370-8344 12 13

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS WI-LAN INC., WI-LAN TECHNOLOGIES

14

CORPORATION, WI-LAN

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

CHIP CORP.

16

Dated: May 22, 2009 By: /s/ Adam R. Alper 17

Adam R. Alper (S.B.N. 196834) 18 aalper@kirkland.com

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

19 555 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94104-1501 20

Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 21 22 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF INTEL

CORPORATION

23 24 25 26

4Order

2

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the hearings for Wi-LAN Inc.’s (“Wi-LAN”) April 3

17, 2009 Motion to Compel Discovery and Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) April 10, 2009 Motion 4

to Compel Discovery Relevant to Wi-LAN’s Motion to Dismiss/Transfer are continued from 5

June 16, 2009, to August 18, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 8

Dated: __M_a_y_ _2_5_______, 2009 By:_______________________________ 9 THE HONORABLE HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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. May 26, 2009).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00184-7
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00184-7

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.