Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 10

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 07-090-SLR

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT Defendant hereby moves for an extension until April 20, 2007 to move, answer or otherwise plead in response to the Complaint filed by plaintiff Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"). In support of its motion, the defendant states: 1. Microsoft filed its Complaint on February 16, 2007, alleging infringement

of four patents by an entity it called Alcatel-Lucent, a French company1. Microsoft purported to serve the complaint at the end of February, making a response due no earlier than March 20, 2007. 2. On March 12, 2007, defendant requested from Microsoft an extension of

time until April 20, 2007 to respond to the Complaint. Defendant requested that extension so that it can analyze the claims made against it and decide how to respond. 3. On March 13, 2007, Microsoft's counsel advised defendant's counsel that

it "looks like" the requested extension would be acceptable. The next day, however, Microsoft's counsel said that it would agree to the extension only "with the understanding that Alcatel will not be contesting service of the Complaint." Microsoft has declined to agree to the routine There is no entity called "Alcatel-Lucent." We assume that Microsoft means to refer to Alcatel Lucent.
1

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 10

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 2 of 5

extension requested by defendant without that condition. Defendant is investigating the service of process issues and is not willing to agree to condition an extension upon not contesting service of process. 4. There is no basis for Microsoft to hold the routine extension requested

hostage to the condition it seeks. 5. Accordingly, defendant requests that the Court grant it an extension of

thirty days, until April 20, 2007, to respond to the Complaint. A form of Order is attached hereto.

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Jack B. Blumenfeld (I.D. No. 1014) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant March 16, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 10

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 3 of 5

RULE 7.1.1. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the subject of the foregoing motion has been discussed with counsel for the plaintiff and that the parties have not been able to reach agreement.

/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)___________ Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 10

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 4 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 07-090-SLR

ORDER This day of March, 2007, it is hereby ordered that the time in which

defendant may move, answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's Complaint is extended until April 20, 2007.

United States District Court Judge
765397.1

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 10

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jack B. Blumenfeld, hereby certify that on March 16, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document, which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following: Thomas L. Halkowski, Esquire Fish & Richardson I also certify that copies were caused to be served on March 16, 2007 upon the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND Thomas L. Halkowski, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 919 N. Market Street Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801 BY E-MAIL Brian R. Nester, Esquire Jeffrey R. Whieldon, Esquire Rama G. Elluru, Esquire William E. Sekyi, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 1425 K. Street, N.W. 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005

/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) [email protected]