Roth v. Loos & Company, Inc. et al
ORDER re 43 for clarification. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge IT IS SO ORDERED. In the parties' case management statement, defendants stated that "there is no prejudice to plaintiff's rights if the RS1 clips are not marked." Doc # 43 at 4. This appears inconsistent STEVEN ROTH, Plaintiff, v LOOS & COMPANY, INC and SEISMIC SOLUTIONS, INC, Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
with 35 USC § 287(a), which places an additional burden on a patentee in an infringement suit if the material is not marked. Counsel are directed to be prepared to explain the statement at the case management conference scheduled for April 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM.
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?