Technology Licensing v. Technicolor USA, Inc.
Filing
332
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 5/4/2011 ORDERING that dft's 329 ex parte motion to REOPEN CASE is GRANTED; dft's Motion to Adopt Part 1 of the Special Master's R & R's Hearing is reset for 7/5/2011 at 02:00 PM in Cour troom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb; the court's 323 Order amending the scheduling order is further amended: Disclosure of Expert Witnesses due by 9/1/2011; Expert testimony for rebuttal by 10/3/2011; Discovery due by 11/7/2011; all pretrial motions filed by 12/6/2011; Final Pretrial Conference reset for 2/21/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb; Trial reset for 4/17/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb.(Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
TECHNOLOGY LICENSING
CORPORATION,
NO. CIV. 2:03-1329 WBS EFB
13
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: EX PARTE MOTION TO
REOPEN CASE
14
v.
15
TECHNICOLOR USA, INC.,
16
Defendant.
17
/
18
19
----oo0oo---Plaintiff Technology Licensing Corporation brought this
20
action against defendant Technicolor USA, Inc., for patent
21
infringement.
22
declaratory judgment of non-infringement, declaratory judgment of
23
patent invalidity, and breach of covenant not to sue.
24
28, 2011, plaintiff filed a Notice of Acceptance of defendant’s
25
Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (Docket No. 326), and the Clerk entered
26
judgment accordingly.
27
applied only to plaintiff’s claims against defendant, the clerk s
28
administratively closed the entire case.
Defendant then filed a counterclaim for
(Docket No. 327.)
1
On March
Although the judgment
Defendant now moves the
1
court to reopen the case with respect to defendant’s
2
counterclaims.
3
(Docket No. 329.)
The parties seem to agree that defendant’s claim for
4
declaratory judgment of non-infringement was extinguished by the
5
Rule 68 Offer of Judgment.
6
the motion is that the court does not have subject matter
7
jurisdiction over the remaining counterclaims.
8
jurisdiction, however, is distinct from the administrative
9
reopening of the case.
Plaintiff’s only ground for opposing
The question of
Plaintiff is free to make its
10
jurisdictional argument in a separate motion.
11
court will grant defendant’s motion to reopen the case.
12
Accordingly, the
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s ex parte
13
motion to reopen the case is GRANTED.
14
reopen the case.
15
The Clerk is instructed to
Defendant’s Motion to Adopt Part 1 of the Special
16
Master’s Report and Recommendations is RESET for July 5, 2011, at
17
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5.
18
The court’s February 14, 2011, Order amending the
19
scheduling order (Docket No. 323) is further amended as follows:
20
The parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in
21
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no
22
later than September 1, 2011.
23
intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed
24
and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
25
Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before October 3, 2011.
26
shall be completed by November 7, 2011.
27
shall be filed by December 6, 2011.
28
Conference is RESET for February 21, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in
With regard to expert testimony
2
All discovery
All pretrial motions
The Final Pretrial
1
Courtroom No. 5.
2
a.m. in Courtroom No. 5.
3
4
The trial is RESET for April 17, 2012, at 9:00
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
May 4, 2011
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?