CASE NOS , -1307, -1309, -1310, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Similar documents
Case 3:12-cv VC Document 119 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 13 (Counsel listed on signature page)

Case: Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2018

Case3:12-cv VC Document77 Filed06/25/15 Page1 of 5

Case3:12-cv VC Document70 Filed06/23/15 Page1 of 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case3:12-cv VC Document46 Filed01/12/15 Page1 of 5

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case: Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/ , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case3:12-cv VC Document88 Filed06/09/15 Page1 of 2

(Lead), -1440, -1441, -1444, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

Case5:08-cv PSG Document494 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6

Case 3:17-cv VC Document Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

JOINT MOTION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26(b) and 10th Cir. R. 27.5, the parties jointly

Leave to file reply brief of up to 10,500 words.

Case , Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, , Page1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No

Case5:08-cv PSG Document519 Filed08/22/13 Page1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8

Case 3:13-cv SC Document 39 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case 4:05-cv Y Document 86 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID 789 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

Case , Document 912, 03/29/2018, , Page1 of 6

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

Case 3:16-md VC Document 419 Filed 08/03/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TELES AG,

Appeal No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CITIZEN CENTER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

Case3:12-cv VC Document50 Filed02/18/15 Page1 of 17

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)

Case: Document: 26-1 Filed: 12/04/2014 Pages: 6 NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:17-cv JLR Document 179 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 3:16-md VC Document 2391 Filed 12/31/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Paper Entered: February 6, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

GRAY PETERSON, Appellant. CHARLES F. GARCIA, et al., Appellees

Case 3:17-cv VC Document 48 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 17

Case 3:15-cv BJD-JRK Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 2283

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 3:17-cv M Document 144 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 3830

UNOPOSSED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT S AMENDED MOTION FOR COURT S APPROVAL TO ELECTRONIC FILE CASE DOCUMENTS VIA CM/ECF SYSTEM 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants,

Case bjh Doc 109 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 14:28:07 Page 1 of 6

Jay Lin v. Chase Card Services

, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PARKERVISION, INC., TO REFORM THE OFFICIAL CAPTION

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Objectors-Appellants, Docket Nos. Plaintiff-Appellant. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Defendants-Appellees.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:18-cv RSL Document 125 Filed 09/13/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 9:15-cv KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2015 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case3:12-cv VC Document21 Filed06/09/14 Page1 of 12

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC.,

Case 0:17-cv BB Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2018 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 357 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 4:12-cv O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824

Case , Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, , Page1 of 1

UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv LY Document 174 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:13-cv MMS Document 54 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT : : : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Applicant, v. UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.

Case 1:13-cv MMS Document 77 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: /16/2014 ID: DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA L. KING 1900 Plaza Drive Louisville, CO Telephone: (303) Direct: (303) Fax: (303)

Case , Document 133-1, 04/09/2018, , Page1 of 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Transcription:

Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 05/27/2016 CASE NOS. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA INC., ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE USA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., NINTENDO CO., LTD., NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Case Nos. 3:12-cv-03865-VC, 3:12-cv-03876-VC, 3:12-cv-03877- VC, 3:12-cv-03880-VC, and 3:12-cv-03881-VC, Judge Vince Chhabria. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 14-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 2 Filed: 05/27/2016 DATED: May 27, 2016 NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C. 3131 West 7th Street Suite 300 Fort Worth, Texas 76107 P. 817-377-9111 F. 817-377-3485 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC 2

Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 3 Filed: 05/27/2016 following: PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC S CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, certifies the 1. The full name of every party represented by me is: Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC. 2. 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: N/A. 3. The names of all parent corporations and publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock in Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC are: Technology Properties Limited LLC and Patriot Scientific Corporation. 4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC in the trial court, or are expected to appear in this Court, are: Nelson Bumgardner, P.C. Edward R. Nelson, III Brent Nelson Bumgardner Thomas C. Cecil Stacie Greskowiak McNulty (withdrawn) John Murphy Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC Robert P. Greenspoon Travis Campbell Banys, P.C. Christopher D. Banys Jennifer Lu Gilbert Christopher J. Judge Richard Cheng-hong Lin Albritton Law Firm Eric M. Albritton 3

Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 4 Filed: 05/27/2016 MOTION FOR 14-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule (26)(b), Plaintiff-Appellant Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC ( PDS ) files this Unopposed Motion for 14-Day Extension of Time to File Reply Brief, and in support thereof, shows as follows: 1. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their Notices of Appeal on December 7, 2015. The appeals were docketed on December 11, 2015, and consolidated on December 16, 2015. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiffs-Appellants principal brief was filed on March 10, 2016 (ECF No. 60), pursuant to an unopposed motion for a 30-day extension of time granted by the Court on February 4, 2016. Defendants- Appellees response brief was filed on May 23, 2016 (ECF No. 67), pursuant to an unopposed motion for a 30-day extension of time granted by the Court on March 30, 2016 (Text-Only Order). Plaintiffs-Appellants reply brief is currently due on June 9, 2016. 2. PDS respectfully requests a 14-day extension to file the reply brief on behalf of all Plaintiffs-Appellants, up to and including June 23, 2016. Plaintiffs- Appellants have good cause for requesting an extension, due to several conflicts with other matters being handled by principal counsel and by co-counsel. 4

Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 5 Filed: 05/27/2016 3. As between the three Plaintiffs-Appellants, PDS (and its counsel) have primary responsibility for filing the reply brief (which will be submitted on behalf of all three of Plaintiffs-Appellants). 4. Counsel for PDS conferred with counsel for Defendants-Appellees regarding this motion, and said counsel indicated that they do not oppose the relief requested in this motion and will not be filing a response in opposition. Plaintiffs- Appellants Technology Properties Limited LLC and Patriot Scientific Corp. consent to the filing of this motion and agree with the relief being sought. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff-Appellant PDS respectfully requests that the Court grant its Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief and extend the deadline for filing by 14 days, from June 9, 2016 to June 23, 2016. 5

Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 6 Filed: 05/27/2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/ NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C. 3131 West 7th Street Suite 300 Fort Worth, Texas 76107 P. 817-377-9111 F. 817-377-3485 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellants Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC /s/ Charles T. Hoge Charles T. Hoge Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP 350 Tenth Avenue Suite 1300 San Diego, California 92101 P. 619-231-8666 F. 619-231-9593 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Patriot Scientific Corporation 6

Case: 16-1306 Document: 72 Page: 7 Filed: 05/27/2016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 27, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing using the Court s CM/ECF filing system. Counsel was served via CM/ECF which constitutes service, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 25(c)(2), Fed. Cir. R. 25(a), and the Court s Administrative Order Regarding Electronic Case Filing 6(A) (May 17, 2012). /s/ Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC 7