Replies to post #8325 on Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

Given the cases just filed in VA and Italy, I don't understand why Rambus would stipulate to give MU more time:

Micron Technology v. Rambus Inc. Docket 716
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware (Wilmington)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ


02/23/2006 716 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file and serve its answering papers in opposition to Rambus Inc.'s Motion to Transfer the Case to the Northern District of California and respond to Rambus' Amended Counterclaims and the time within which Rambus must serve and file its reply papers in connection with its motion to transfer to March 15, 2006 and March 29, 2006, respectively - filed by Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc.. (King, Matthew) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

[docrew0]

`<font color=green>1:00-cv-00792-KAJ Micron v. Rambus Inc.
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware (Wilmington)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ

02/27/2006 SO ORDERED, re 716 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME - Reset Briefing Schedule Re: 712 Motion to Transfer: Answering Brief due 3/15/2006. Reply Brief due 3/29/2006. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 2/27/06. (rwc, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)