, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated

Transcription

1 Case: Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 12/23/ , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PARKERVISION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF Plaintiff-Appellant ParkerVision respectfully moves for a 14-day extension of the due date for filing its response and reply brief. This is ParkerVision s first request for an extension of time relating to its brief, which is currently due on January 5, The extension sought here would extend the due date for the brief to January 20, 2015 (Monday, January 19, 2015, being a federal holiday). Counsel for ParkerVision has discussed this motion with counsel for Qualcomm, who has indicated that Qualcomm does not oppose the requested 14- day extension. granted. The requested extension is needed for a number of reasons and should be

2 Case: Document: 60 Page: 2 Filed: 12/23/2014 (1) ParkerVision s primary appellate counsel, the law firm of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP ( Finnegan ), was not lead counsel at trial. As a result, it has taken some time for the Finnegan attorneys preparing the brief to study the parts of the record below relating to Qualcomm s cross-appeal. (2) Preparing ParkerVision s brief requires coordination between appellate counsel at Finnegan, trial counsel at the law firm of McKool Smith PC, and ParkerVision. Having to coordinate matters among this group necessarily adds to the time it takes to prepare ParkerVision s response and reply brief. (3) The Christmas and New Year holidays are upcoming. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant ParkerVision s motion and extend the due date for filing its response and reply brief to January 20, A proposed order believed appropriate for entry by the Court is attached to this motion. 2

3 Case: Document: 60 Page: 3 Filed: 12/23/2014 Dated: December 23, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Douglas A. Cawley MCKOOL SMITH, PC 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX (214) Kevin L. Burgess Joshua W. Budwin MCKOOL SMITH, PC 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, TX (512) /s/ Erik R. Puknys Donald R. Dunner FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC (202) Erik R. Puknys Jacob A. Schroeder FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 3300 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA (650) Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant ParkerVision, Inc. 3

4 Case: Document: 60 Page: 4 Filed: 12/23/ , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for ParkerVision, Inc., certifies the following: The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: ParkerVision, Inc. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: None All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: None The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or are expected to appear in this court are: Finnegan, Henderson Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. Donald R. Dunner, Erik R. Puknys, Jacob A. Schroeder McKool, Smith, P.C. Douglas A. Cawley, Richard A. Kamprath, Ivan Wang, Kevin L. Burgess, Josh W. Budwin, Leah Buratti, Mario A. Apareotesi, Kevin Kneupper, James Quigley, Travis G. White

5 Case: Document: 60 Page: 5 Filed: 12/23/2014 Smith Hulsey & Busey Stephen D. Busey, James A. Bolling Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist Ava K. Doppelt, Bran R. Gilchrist, Jeffrey S. Boyles Caldwell, Cassady & Curry, P.C. Jason D. Cassady, John A. Curry 2

6 Case: Document: 60 Page: 6 Filed: 12/23/ , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of the Unopposed Motion of ParkerVision for an Extension of Time to File Its Response and Reply Brief, it is ORDERED that: The motion is GRANTED. The time for filing ParkerVision s response and reply brief shall be extended up to and including January 20, FOR THE COURT: Date:

7 Case: Document: 60 Page: 7 Filed: 12/23/2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Unopposed Motion of ParkerVision for an Extension of Time to File Its Response and Reply Brief and the proposed Order were served upon registered counsel by operation of the Court s CM/ECF system on this 23 rd day of December, /s/ Kay Wylie