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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Microchip Technology, Inc., et al v. United Module Corp. et al, No. 2:11-cv-00332 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2010)

Granted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:11-cv-00332, Dkt. No. 11
Decided
October 14, 2010
Judge
Joseph C. Spero, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Length
2 pages

1 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. 157781

jim@agilityiplaw.com

2 MONICA MUCCHETTI ENO, State Bar No. 164107

monica@agilityiplaw.com

3 AGILITY IP LAW

1900 University Circle, Suite 201

4 East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Telephone: (650) 227-4800

5 Facsimile: (650) 318-3483 6

Attorneys for Defendants

7 UNITED MODULE CORP. and

KERANOS LLC

8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 SAN JOSE DIVISION

12 13 MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and ) CASE NO.: CV-10-04241 (JCS)

SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., )

14 )

Plaintiffs, )

15 ) STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF

v. ) TIME TO RESPOND TO

16 ) COMPLAINT

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, )

17 LLC, )

)

18 Defendants. )

)

19 ) ) 20 ) 21 22 WHEREAS defendant United Module Corp. (“U. Module”) acknowledges that it has been served 23 with the Complaint in the above-referenced action, and 24 WHEREAS, defendant U. Module and Keranos, LLC would like additional time to respond to the 25 Complaint, 26 Plaintiffs Microchip Technology, Inc. and Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (collectively 27 “Plaintiffs”) hereby agree and STIPULATE, pursuant to Civ. Local Rule 6-1(a), that Defendants U.

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO CASE NO. CV-10-4241 (JCS)

21 Module and Keranos, LLC shall have an extension of time until November 12, 2010 to file their responsive 2 pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 3 4 Dated: October 13, 2010 AGILITY IP LAW 5 6 By: /s/ Monica Mucchetti Eno

Monica Mucchetti Eno 7

Attorneys for Defendants

8 UNITED MODULE CORP. and KERANOS, LLC 9 10 Dated: October 13, 2010 KING & SPALDING LLP 11 12 By: /s/ Paul J. Andre

Paul J. Andre

13

Attorneys for Defendants

14 MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and SILICON

STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

15

SDISTR

E IC

T T

A

T C

16 O

S

D U

E R

17 Dated: 10/14/10 T ED T

DER

I OR

SO

N IS

IT

18 U A

I

N

pero

N C. S R

19 eph

e Jos O

O Judg

R F

T I

L

20 H A

E C

R F

N O

D T

21 ISTRIC

22 23 24 25 26 27

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO -2- CASE NO. CV-10-4241 (JCS)

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

Microchip Technology, Inc., et al v. United Module Corp. et al, No. 2:11-cv-00332 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2010).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_11-cv-00332-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_11-cv-00332-0

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.