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