Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 23

Proposed Order re 21 MOTION to Dismiss OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO BIFURCATE AND STAY DEFENDANT BLOCKBUSTER'S ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIMS AND TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND PATENT MISUSE by Netflix, Inc.. (Durie, Daralyn) (Filed on 7/6/2006)

Download PDF
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc. 23 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 23 Filed 07/06/2006 Page 1 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 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP JEFFREY R. CHANIN - #103649 DARALYN J. DURIE - #169825 KEVIN T. REED - #240799 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Plaintiff NETFLIX, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, DOES 1-50, Defendant. Case No. C 06 2361 WHA [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NETFLIX'S MOTION TO DISMISS BLOCKBUSTER'S ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIMS AND TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND PATENT MISUSE Date: Time: Judge: August 17, 2006 8:00 a.m. Hon. William Alsup 376520.01 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NETFLIX'S MOTION TO DISMISS ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIMS AND TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND PATENT MISUSE Case No. C 06 2361 WHA Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 23 Filed 07/06/2006 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 Dated: Plaintiff Netflix, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Defendant's First and Second Counterclaims and to strike Defendant's Second and Third affirmative defenses came on for hearing before this Court on August 17, 2006, at _____ a.m. before the Honorable William Alsup, United States District Court, San Francisco, California, with all parties having appeared through counsel. The Court having reviewed the request, and after consideration of the opposition and reply papers, arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff Netflix, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is GRANTED on the grounds that Defendant's First and Second Counterclaims and Second and Third affirmative were not plead with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. _____________________________________ Hon. William Alsup United States District Judge 1 376520.01 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NETFLIX'S MOTION TO DISMISS ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIMS AND TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND PATENT MISUSE CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA

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?