MShift, Inc. v. Digital Insight Corporation et al

Filing 78

QUESTIONS FOR COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 7, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, COMMUNITY TRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Louisiana corporation, and COMMUNITY TRUST BANK, a Louisiana corporation, Defendants. DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Counterclaimant, v. MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Counterdefendant. / QUESTIONS FOR COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT No. C 10-00710 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/

Counsel for all interested parties shall file BY NOON ON JUNE 14, 2010, in five doublespaced pages or less, responses to the following questions: 1. Whether plaintiff should be required to specify in detail the factual basis for the

assertion that the proposed defendants infringe the patent-in-suit, specifying each claim asserted,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

explaining why each limitation thereof is met in the accused product(s), and specifically identifying each accused product before the undersigned rules on the pending motion. 2. Whether, if enlargement of the action is permitted, invalidity issues should be

decided first with all other infringement issues held in abeyance, the reason being that there would be no cause to impose the burden of litigation upon so many new parties if the patent is found to be invalid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2010.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2