In Doc 180 and 181, 17 defendants are asking for a 4 day extension (until 19 Feb 10) to respond to EDIG's original complaint (Doc 01). However, if the court approves EDIG's motion for their ammended complaint (Doc 178) before 19 Feb 10, these 17 defendants will get extra time to respond.

From Doc 180:

3. In the interests of judicial economy, the Moving Defendants respectfully move for
a 4 business day extension of time to and including February 19, 2010 to answer or otherwise respond to the original Complaint. The requested extension of time will allow the Moving Defendants to avoid the expense of finalizing and filing answers or other responses to the original Complaint in the event that plaintiff’s Motion To Amend is granted. In the event the Motion To Amend is granted prior to February 19, defendants will not be required to respond to the original Complaint and will have such time as is authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 or court order to respond to the Amended Complaint.

----------

The ammended complaint adds these elements to the suit as seen in Doc 178:

1. adds a claim for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,742,737 following the
United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (the “USPTO”) recent
issuance of a Certificate of Correction to the ‘737 Patent;

2. provides more detail regarding the infringement allegations asserted
against Defendants, including more specificity regarding the asserted
claims and theory of infringement, as recommended by this Court in the
Rule 16 Conference (Reporter’s Transcript at 21:23–22:4, referenced
excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit B); and

3. corrects the names of Defendants DXG Technology Corporation
(misidentified as DXG Technology, Inc. in the original Complaint);
Kyocera Wireless Corporation (misidentified as Kyocera Wireless, Inc. in
the original Complaint); and Summit Technology Group, LLC
(misidentified as Summit Global Group, LLC in the original Complaint).