Mohsen v. Moss et al

Filing 54

ORDER Denying as Moot 37 MOTION to Quash filed by United States Patent and Trademark Office. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/03/2013. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 AMR MOHSEN, No. C 09-01426 CRB (DMR) 9 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ON US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 11 JOEL MOSS, et al., 12 13 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 14 Before the court is the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) motion to 15 quash a subpoena served on it by pro se Plaintiff Amr Mohsen. [Docket No. 37.] On December 7, 16 2012, the court issued an order on the motion to quash in which the court construed Plaintiff’s 17 position in opposition to the motion to quash as a withdrawal with prejudice of the subpoena at 18 issue. [Docket No. 50 (Order on Motion to Quash).] The court gave Plaintiff until December 21, 19 2012 to object to the court’s construing his position this way. (Order on Motion to Quash 3.) 20 Having received no objection from Plaintiff to the December 7, 2012 order, the court hereby deems 21 Plaintiff’s subpoena to the PTO withdrawn with prejudice. Accordingly, the PTO’s motion to quash 22 the subpoena is DENIED as moot. 23 S H ER R NIA FO RT 28 DONNA M. RYU na M. Ryu United States e Don Judg Magistrate Judge NO 27 LI Dated: January 3, 2013 26 DERED O OR IT IS S A 25 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 UNIT ED For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 N D IS T IC T R OF C

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?