Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) filed an agreed motion to extend the mediation deadline in a patent infringement case brought against it by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT). HP requested extending the mediation deadline from September 24, 2014 to October 24, 2014 because it is seeking indemnity from its suppliers but does not yet have authority from the suppliers to make a settlement demand. IDT agreed to the extension. The court had previously extended the mediation deadline once.
Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) filed an agreed motion to extend the mediation deadline in a patent infringement case brought against it by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT). HP requested extending the mediation deadline from September 24, 2014 to October 24, 2014 because it is seeking indemnity from its suppliers but does not yet have authority from the suppliers to make a settlement demand. IDT agreed to the extension. The court had previously extended the mediation deadline once.
Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) filed an agreed motion to extend the mediation deadline in a patent infringement case brought against it by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT). HP requested extending the mediation deadline from September 24, 2014 to October 24, 2014 because it is seeking indemnity from its suppliers but does not yet have authority from the suppliers to make a settlement demand. IDT agreed to the extension. The court had previously extended the mediation deadline once.
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00522-JRG
LEAD CASE
AGREED MOTION TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE COMES NOW Defendant, Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), and files this Agreed Motion to Extend the Mediation Deadline. Pursuant to the Courts August 28, 2014 Order (Dkt. 107), the deadline to complete mediation is currently September 24, 2014. Defendant requests that the Court enter an Order extending the deadline for Hewlett-Packard Company and Innovative Display Technologies to complete the mediation until and including October 24, 2014. Hewlett-Packard Company is looking to its suppliers for indemnity, but does not yet have authority from those suppliers to make a settlement demand. The additional time will allow HP to discuss settlement further with the suppliers which could potentially make the mediation more productive. Plaintiff and Defendant have met and conferred on the matter and recognize an extension of time is warranted, is in the interest of justice, and is not for purposes of delay. The Court has extended the deadline to complete mediation once pursuant to an Agreed Motion (Dkt. 97). Defendant HP respectfully requests that the Court grant this agreed motion extending the time for HP and IDT to complete mediation from September 24, 2014 to October Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 123 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2708
2 24, 2014. A proposed order is attached herewith.
Dated: September 16, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Peter J. Wied Peter J . Wied
LOCAL COUNSEL:
Harry Lee Gillam, J r. GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 303 S. Washington Ave. Marshall, Texas 75670 Tel. (903) 934-8450 Fax (903) 934-9257 gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OF COUNSEL:
Peter J . Wied, Admitted Pro Hac Vice GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 S Figueroa Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel.: 213.426.2500 Fax.: 213.623.1673 pwied@goodwinprocter.com
Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that I have complied with the requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h) and that this motion is unopposed. /s/ Peter J. Wied Peter J . Wied
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Courts CMECF system on the 16th day of September, 2014. /s/ Peter J. Wied Peter J . Wied
Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 123 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2709
John J. Pomerantz, Walter Leiter, Alan Golub, Fred Pomerantz and Ralph Iannazzone, Plaintiffs-Counterclaim v. Ira D. Schandler, Carolina Erath 1978 Associates, Carolina Erath 1979 Associates and Carolina Energy Corporation, and M. Albert Nissim, Defendant-Counterclaim v. Leslie Fay Inc., Additional Counterclaim Golenbock and Barell, Movants-Appellants, 704 F.2d 681, 2d Cir. (1983)