`
`
`
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY (SB# 175421)
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`PHILIP OU (SB# 259896)
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`JOSEPH J. RUMPLER, II (SB# 296941)
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`ANDY LEGOLVAN (SB# 292520)
`andylegolvan@paulhastings.com
`BERKELEY FIFE (SB# 325293)
`berkeleyfife@paulhastings.com
`BORIS LUBARSKY (SB# 324896)
`borislubarsky@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: 1(650) 320-1900
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-05676-EJD
`APPLIED MATERIAL’S UNOPPOSED
`MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`TO FILE REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`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 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 24 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Applied Materials (“Applied”) hereby moves under Local Rule 6-3 to extend the
`
`time within which it is required to reply to Defendant Demaray LLC’s (“Demaray”) Opposition to
`
`Applied’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction by one week, from October 2, 2020 to October 9,
`
`2020. Applied filed its Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 4, 2020. Dkt. No. 14.
`
`Demaray requested, and Applied agreed to, a one week extension to file its Opposition to Applied’s
`
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 18. The Court granted Demaray’s Unopposed Motion
`
`for an Extension of Time. Dkt. No 21. On September 25, 2020, Demaray filed its Opposition. Dkt
`
`No. 23.
`
`
`
`Considering the timing of Demaray’s Opposition and Applied Counsel’s schedule; and the
`
`time needed to investigate the arguments raised in Demaray’s Opposition; Applied seeks a one
`
`week extension of time to file its reply on October 9, 2020. Counsel for Applied has a claim
`
`construction hearing set for October 2, 2020 in a separate case, Innovation Sciences LLC v. HTC
`
`Corporation, 4:18-cv-00476. Declaration of Philip Ou (“Ou Decl.”) ¶ 2. Demaray’s extension of
`
`time to file an Opposition moved Applied’s deadline to reply – now the same day as Applied’s
`
`Counsel’s claim construction hearing. Moreover, Demaray’s Opposition raises arguments and facts
`
`that require time to investigate, and Applied would be prejudiced by being required to attempt to
`
`marshal the information necessary to fully respond in the provided timeframe. Id. Applied’s motion
`
`is noticed for hearing on November 12, 2020. Dkt. No. 15. The requested extension will not impact
`
`the noticed hearing date, as briefing will still be completed nearly five weeks in advance of the
`
`November 12, 2020 hearing. The parties have met and conferred and Demaray has agreed to the
`
`one week extension.
`
`To date there have been two extensions in this case: a stipulation to extend Demaray’s
`
`deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint until November 23, 2020,
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 24 Filed 09/28/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 20; and Demaray’s Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to respond to Applied’s
`
`Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. No. 21. There have been no other extensions in this matter.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Applied requests that the Court grant this motion and issue an
`
`order extending the deadline for Applied to reply to October 9, 2020. Demaray does not oppose
`
`this motion.
`
`
`
`
`DATED: September 28, 2020
`
`
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY
`PHILIP OU
`JOSEPH J. RUMPLER, II
`ANDY LEGOLVAN
`BERKELEY FIFE
`BORIS LUBARSKY
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`By: /s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
