Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`PAUL ANDRE (SBN 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (SBN 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (SBN 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER B. KASTENS (SBN 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`AUSTIN MANES (SBN 284065)
`amanes@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`CLEMENT ROBERTS (SBN 209203)
`croberts@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 773-5700
`Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
`
`VICKIE FEEMAN (SBN 177487)
`vfeeman@orrick.com
`FRANCES CHEEVER (SBN 287585)
`fcheever@orrick.com
`EVAN D. BREWER (SBN 304411)
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Telephone: (650) 614-7400
`Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
`ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC. TO RESPOND
`TO DEFENDANT CHECK POINT
`SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’S
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES Ltd., an Israeli Limited
`Company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(a) and (b), 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and
`
`Defendants Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. (“Inc.”) and Check Point Software Technologies
`
`Ltd. (“Ltd.”) (together, “Check Point”) (collectively, “the Parties”), by and through their respective
`
`counsel, hereby stipulate to extend the time for Finjan to respond to Ltd.’s Answer to the Complaint, in
`
`light of the Court’s recent ruling on Finjan’s Motion to Strike Inc.’s Affirmative Defenses.
`
`WHEREAS, none of the following proposed extensions will have any effect on the remainder
`
`of this case;
`
`WHEREAS, Inc. filed an Answer in this case on July 16, 2018 (Dkt. 19) and filed an Amended
`
`Answer with affirmative defenses on November 21, 2018 (Dkt. 46);
`
`WHEREAS, Ltd. filed an Answer to the Complaint with affirmative defenses on January 8,
`
`2019 (Dkt. 56);
`
`WHEREAS, there is substantial overlap between the affirmative defenses alleged in Inc.’s
`
`Amended Answer (Dkt. 46) and Ltd.’s Answer (Dkt. 56);
`
`WHEREAS, Finjan moved to strike the affirmative defenses in Inc.’s Amended Answer (Dkt.
`
`46) on December 5, 2018 (Dkt. 49);
`
`WHEREAS, on January 25, 2019, the Court granted Finjan’s motion to strike (Dkt. 49) in part
`
`and gave Inc. leave to amend certain affirmative defenses (Dkt. 65);
`
`WHEREAS, Finjan’s response to Ltd.’s Answer (Dkt. 56) is currently due on January 29, 2019;
`
`WHEREAS, Finjan consents to Ltd. amending its Answer in a manner consistent with the
`
`Court’s order on Inc.’s affirmative defenses (Dkt. 65) to avoid duplicative motion practice;
`
`WHEREAS, Ltd. has agreed to amend its Answer in light of the Court’s order on Inc.’s
`
`affirmative defenses (Dkt. 65) and Check Point states it will file a joint Amended Answer for both Inc.
`
`and Ltd.;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties agree that in the interests of efficiency and economy, Finjan shall not
`
`be required to respond to Ltd.’s current Answer and Finjan’s time to respond to Check Point’s
`
`forthcoming joint Amended Answer shall be due fourteen days after Check Point files its joint
`
`Amended Answer;
`
`1
`STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Court previously modified the schedule in this case four times: to adjust the
`
`briefing schedule for Finjan’s Motion to Impute Service, Dkt. No. 35; to extend the hearing date on
`
`Finjan’s Motion to Impute Service by seven days, Dkt. No. 42; to adjust the briefing schedule and
`
`hearing on Finjan’s Motion to Strike and extend Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd.’s time to
`
`respond to the compliant, Dkt. No. 52; and recently to extend Check Point’s time to file a Reply in
`
`support of its Motion to Enforce Order and Strike Infringement Contentions (Dkt. 64).
`
`NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that the deadline for Finjan to
`
`respond to Ltd.’s Answer is vacated and Finjan’s time to respond to Check Point’s joint Amended
`
`Answer shall be fourteen days after Check Point files its joint Amended Answer.
`
`IT IS SO STIPULATED.
`
`
`Dated: January 29, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`Austin Manes
`By: /s/
`Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404)
`James Hannah (SBN 237978)
`Kristopher Kastens (SBN 254797)
`Austin Manes (SBN 284065)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`amanes@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 29, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Vickie Feeman
`
`
`Vickie Feeman (SBN 177487)
`Frances Cheever (SBN 287585)
`Evan Brewer (SBN 304411)
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON
`& SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`2
`STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`vfeeman@orrick.com
`fcheever@orrick.com
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`
`Clement Roberts
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON
`& SUTCLIFFE LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`croberts@orrick.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`CHECK POINT
`
`ATTESTATION
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
`
`document has been obtained from any other signatory to this document.
`
`By: /s/ Austin Manes
`
`Austin Manes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`3
`STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/29/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`The current deadline for Finjan to respond to Ltd.’s Answer is vacated. Finjan shall respond to
`
`Check Point’s joint Amended Answer fourteen days after Check Point files it.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: _______________, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Honorable William H. Orrick
`United States District Judge
`
`4
`STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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
`
`