`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 16-290 (MN)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`STIPULATED AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`In response to the Court’s September 4, 2018 Oral Order, counsel for plaintiff Godo Kaisha
`
`IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”) and defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”) met and
`
`conferred to conform the existing claim construction deadlines with paragraphs 11 and 12 of the
`
`Court’s form Scheduling Order. The parties have stipulated to the following amendments:
`
`Existing
`Due Date
`
`New
`Due Date
`
`Event
`
`9/14/2018
`
`Unchanged
`
`IP Bridge shall serve, but not file, its opening claim construction
`brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9/28/2018
`
`OmniVision shall serve, but not file, its answering claim
`construction brief
`
`10/5/2018
`
`IP Bridge shall serve, but not file, its reply brief
`
`10/12/2018
`
`OmniVision shall serve, but not file, its sur-reply
`
`10/17/2018
`
`The parties shall (a) file a joint claim construction brief in
`substantially the same the format set forth in paragraph 11 of
`the Court’s form Scheduling Order, (b) submit their respective
`technology tutorials, and (c) notify the Court by joint letter
`submission (i) whether they request leave to present testimony
`at the Markman hearing and (ii) the amount of time they are
`requesting be allocated to them for the hearing.
`
`10/31/2018
`
`Unchanged Markman Hearing at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 84 Filed 09/10/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1728
`
`Dated: September 10, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Stamatios Stamoulis
`Stamatios Stamoulis (#4606)
`Richard C. Weinblatt (#5080)
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`(302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 84 Filed 09/10/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1729
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 16-290 (MN)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Before the Court is a stipulation to amend the Scheduling Order (D.I. 37 as amended on
`
`July 3, 2018 and August 27, 2018) filed by plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”) and
`
`defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”). After consideration of the joint
`
`stipulation, the Court hereby AMENDS the Scheduling Order as follows:
`
`Due Date
`
`9/14/2018
`
`Event
`
`IP Bridge shall serve, but not file, its opening claim construction
`brief
`
`9/28/2018
`
`OmniVision shall serve, but not file, its answering claim
`construction brief
`
`10/5/2018
`
`IP Bridge shall serve, but not file, its reply brief
`
`10/12/2018
`
`OmniVision shall serve, but not file, its sur-reply
`
`10/17/2018
`
`The parties shall (a) file a joint claim construction brief in
`substantially the same the format set forth in paragraph 11 of
`the Court’s form Scheduling Order, (b) submit their respective
`technology tutorials, and (c) notify the Court by joint letter
`submission (i) whether they request leave to present testimony
`at the Markman hearing and (ii) the amount of time they are
`requesting be allocated to them for the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 84 Filed 09/10/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1730
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ day of September, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Honorable Maryellen Noreika
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
