Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 27 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2172
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C.A. No. 16-830-RGA
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC and IP CO., LLC d/b/a INTUS
`IQ,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`STREETLINE, INC., KAPSCH
`TRAFFICCOM HOLDING CORP., and
`KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM U.S. CORP.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
`RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Pierre R. Yanney
`Stephen E. Underwood
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`180 Maiden Lane
`New York, NY 10038
`(212) 806-5400
`pyanney@stroock.com
`sunderwood@stroock.com
`
`
`Dated: July 10, 2017
`
`ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`Nicholas D. Mozal (#5838)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`bschladweiler@ramllp.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Streetline, Inc.,
`Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp., and
`Kapsch TrafficCom U.S. Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 27 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2173
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), Defendants Streetline, Inc.
`
`(“Streetline”), Kapsch TraffiCom Holding Corp. (“Kapsch Holding”) and Kapsch TraffiCom
`
`U.S. Corp. (“Kapsch U.S.”) (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully request that the Court
`
`extend their time to respond to Plaintiffs SIPCO, LLC’s (“SIPCO”) and IPCO, LLC’s (“IPCO”)
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 25) by 28 days, from July 14, 2017
`
`to August 11, 2017.
`
`Prior to bringing this motion, Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs in a good
`
`faith effort to obtain Plaintiffs’ consent. Plaintiffs offered to consent, but only on condition that
`
`Defendants agree to file only an answer – rather than another motion to dismiss the complaint
`
`– at the end of the proposed 28-day period. See Exh. A (July 6-7, 2017 email correspondence
`
`between counsel). Defendants cannot agree to that condition, because Defendants intend to file
`
`a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Thus, Defendants understand that
`
`Plaintiffs will oppose the instant motion.1
`
`Defendants respectfully submit that the requested extension is reasonable under the
`
`circumstances, and is necessary for Defendants to formulate a full and complete motion to
`
`dismiss. An extension is needed for at least the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint includes ten new “claim charts,” which
`
`purport to show how each element of certain claims of the ten patents-in-suit are met by
`
`Defendants’ accused products. These claim charts comprise 284 pages of new material. The
`
`14-day response period provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3) simply does not provide enough
`
`
`1 Defendants note, however, that Plaintiffs cannot legitimately claim to be prejudiced by a 28-
`day extension, because they offered to consent to an extension of exactly that length (albeit only
`if Defendants agreed to file an answer, rather than a motion to dismiss). See Exh. A. Plaintiffs’
`“conditioning” of their consent upon Defendants’ agreement to waive their right to file a motion
`to dismiss seems to be little more than an attempt to leverage Defendants’ need for an extension
`of time, into an inducement for Defendants to give up their substantive rights.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 27 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 2174
`
`time for Defendants to parse these 284 pages of claim charts and determine whether they allege
`
`sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for infringement under Twombly/Iqbal. Defendants
`
`respectfully submit that they need the requested extension, both: (i) to parse through the claim
`
`charts and determine whether – and to what extent – they satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal standard;
`
`and (ii) to the extent that they do not satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal standard, to formulate and draft
`
`arguments to that effect, for inclusion in Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants’ counsel Stephen Underwood – who was substantially involved in
`
`preparing Defendants’ prior motions to dismiss, and who will be substantially involved in
`
`preparing the next one – is currently studying to take the California Bar Exam, which will be
`
`held on July 25. Mr. Underwood will have limited – if any – availability to work on this matter
`
`until then. Thus, the requested extension is necessary to allow Defendants’ counsel of choice
`
`sufficient time to prepare the motion to dismiss.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint fails to cure the deficiencies of the prior
`
`Complaints pertaining to the alleged involvement of the Kapsch Defendants in the allegedly-
`
`infringing conduct. Thus, Defendants intend to argue, this case should be dismissed with
`
`prejudice as to the Kapsch Defendants. Defendants require adequate time to formulate and
`
`draft arguments to show that dismissal with prejudice is proper as to these Defendants.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiffs cannot identify any genuine prejudice that they would suffer
`
`from a 28-day extension. This case has been pending for nearly ten months, yet it is still only
`
`at the complaint stage. That is solely due to the fact that Plaintiffs have insisted on filing
`
`complaints that are manifestly deficient on their face. If time truly was of the essence for
`
`Plaintiffs, they could have avoided this entire 10-month delay simply by filing a complaint that
`
`satisfies Twombly/Iqbal. Yet, for nearly ten months now, they have failed to do so. Thus,
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 27 Filed 07/10/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 2175
`
`Plaintiffs should not be heard to complain that they would be unduly prejudiced by a 28-day
`
`delay, when they have themselves already caused a nearly ten-month delay, by repeatedly
`
`filing complaints that manifestly fail to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules.
`
`WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, Defendants
`
`respectfully request that their deadline to respond to the Second Amended Complaint be
`
`extended by 28 days, until August 11, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Pierre R. Yanney
`Stephen E. Underwood
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`180 Maiden Lane
`New York, NY 10038
`(212) 806-5400
`pyanney@stroock.com
`sunderwood@stroock.com
`
`
`
`Dated: July 10, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`
` /s/ Nicholas D. Mozal
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`Nicholas D. Mozal (#5838)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`bschladweiler@ramllp.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Streetline, Inc.,
`Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp., and
`Kapsch TrafficCom U.S. Corp.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 27 Filed 07/10/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 2176
`
`RULE 7.1.1 STATEMENT
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs in an
`
`attempt to narrow or resolve the issues presented in this motion. However, the parties were not
`
`able to reach agreement, necessitating this motion.
`
` /s/ Nicholas D. Mozal
`Nicholas D. Mozal (#5838)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 27 Filed 07/10/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 2177
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Nicholas D. Mozal, hereby certify
`
`that on July 10, 2017, I caused
`
`the
`
`
`
`foregoing Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Second Amended
`
`Complaint to be served via electronic mail upon the following counsel of record:
`
`George Pazuniak
`Sean T. O'Kelly
`Daniel Patrick Murray
`901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`gp@del-iplaw.com
`sokelly@oeblegal.com
`dmurray@oeblegal.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff SIPCO, LLC and
`IP CO., LLC d/b/a INTUS IQ
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Nicholas D. Mozal
`Nicholas D. Mozal (#5838)
`
`
`
`
`
`