Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Electronics For Imaging Inc et al
Filing
89
ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: In view of the Courts July 31, 2013 Order Granting Summary Judgment, the Court hereby DENIES the following pending motions: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Infringement Contentions is DEN IED AS MOOT (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx), 68 ; Digitech Image Technologies LLCs Ex Parte Application is DENIED ASMOOT (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx), 86 ; Ricoh Co., Ltd. and Ricoh Americans Corp.s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1689-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 35); Xerox Corp.s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1693-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 27);Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.s Motion for Leave to FileThird Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1694-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 35).Further, in an abundance of caution, the Court hereby ORDERS all parties to file a joint status report by August 7, 2013. This report should be filed only in the lead case (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx)), and must briefly state reasons why, in light of the Courts findings that claims 16, 9, 1015, and 2631 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Court should not enter final judgment in favor of Defendants. For instance, though the Court believes this is not the case, it is conceivable that Digitech has asserted claims 78, 1625, or 3233 against one or more Defendants. There may also be other reasons unknown to the Court why it should not enter final judgment. (lc). Modified on 7/31/2013. (lc).
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
DIGITECH IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
18
19
ORDER
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC.
et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Case No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx)
In view of the Court’s July 31, 2013 Order Granting Summary Judgment, the
Court hereby DENIES the following pending motions:
o
Electronics For Imaging, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Infringement
20
Contentions is DENIED AS MOOT (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx),
21
ECF No. 68);
22
o
MOOT (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 86);
23
24
Digitech Image Technologies LLC’s Ex Parte Application is DENIED AS
o
Ricoh Co., Ltd. and Ricoh Americans Corp.’s Motion for Leave to File
25
Third Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1689-ODW(MRWx), ECF
26
No. 35);
27
28
o
Xerox Corp.’s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint is DENIED
(No. 8:12-cv-1693-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 27);
1
o
Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File
2
Third Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1694-ODW(MRWx), ECF
3
No. 35).
4
Further, in an abundance of caution, the Court hereby ORDERS all parties to
5
file a joint status report by August 7, 2013. This report should be filed only in the
6
lead case (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx)), and must briefly state reasons why, in
7
light of the Court’s findings that claims 1–6, 9, 10–15, and 26–31 are invalid under 35
8
U.S.C. § 101, the Court should not enter final judgment in favor of Defendants. For
9
instance, though the Court believes this is not the case, it is conceivable that Digitech
10
has asserted claims 7–8, 16–25, or 32–33 against one or more Defendants. There may
11
also be other reasons unknown to the Court why it should not enter final judgment.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
July 31, 2013
14
15
16
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?