Acrobat PDF

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 20

You must be logged in to download this document
Reviews
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Stats
views:
35
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
4/9/2008
language:
English
pages:
0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. Doc. 20 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW Document 20 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, No. C02-01991 CRB STIPULATION SELECTING ADR PROCESS [ADR L.R. 3-5] ADR CERTIFICATION GOOGLE INC., a California Corporation, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Dated: August 5, 2002 24 25 26 27 28 By: /s/ Jon B. Streeter KEKER & VAN NEST, L.L.P. Attorney for Defendant GOOGLE INC. Dated: August 5, 2002 By: /s/ Jack C. Berenzweig BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE Attorney for Plaintiff OVERTURE SERVICES, INC. The parties stipulate to participate in the following ADR process: Court Processes: Arbitration Private Processes: X Private ADR (Private Mediation) ENE Mediation Defendant. The parties agree that mediation would be most useful if scheduled around the time of, but prior to, the Court’s claim construction hearing. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW Document 20 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION BY PARTIES AND LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 16 and ADR L.R. 3-5(b), each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled “Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California,” or the specified portions of the ADR Unit’s Internet site , discussed the available dispute resolution options provided by the court and private entities, and considered whether this case might benefit from any of them. Dated: August 5, 2002 By: /s/ Jeanine Hayes OVERTURE SERVICES, INC. Dated: August 5, 2002 By: /s/ Jack C. Berenzweig BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE Attorney for Plaintiff OVERTURE SERVICES, INC. Dated: August 5, 2002 By: /s/ David Drummond GOOGLE INC. Dated: August 5, 2002 By: /s/ Jon B. Streeter KEKER & VAN NEST, L.L.P. Attorney for Defendant GOOGLE INC. I hereby attest, pursuant to section X of General Order 45, that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Jeanine Hayes, David Drummond, and Jon B. Streeter. Dated: August 5, 2002 By: /s/ Jack C. Berenzweig BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE Attorney for Plaintiff OVERTURE SERVICES, INC. STIPULATING SELECTING ADR PROCESS AND ADR CERTIFICATION -2-

Shared by: Tim Stanley
Other docs by Tim Stanley
Related docs
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 22
Views: 26  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 151
Views: 26  |  Downloads: 1
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 81
Views: 12  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 158
Views: 26  |  Downloads: 1
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 154
Views: 18  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 210
Views: 10  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 70
Views: 16  |  Downloads: 1
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 56
Views: 23  |  Downloads: 1
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 69
Views: 16  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 72
Views: 17  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 125
Views: 12  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 103
Views: 13  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 38
Views: 17  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 111
Views: 10  |  Downloads: 0
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 114
Views: 14  |  Downloads: 0