Keung TSE v. eBay, Inc. et al

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET DEADLINE re 84 MOTION to Set a Deadline for Fulfilling Patent L.R. 4.1 by Plaintiff and Defendants filed by Ho Keung TSE, 81 Notice (Other) filed by Ho Keung TSE. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 16, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/16/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
HO KEUNG TSE,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO
SET DEADLINE

EBAY INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 11-01812 WHA

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se following the transfer of this patent action from the

17

Eastern District of Texas, moves “to set a deadline for fulfilling Patent L.R. 4.1.” Plaintiff

18

construes the Patent Local Rules of this district as being similar to those of the Texas court and

19

argues that the deadlines imposed by the Texas court survived the venue transfer. Because the

20

Texas deadline for invalidity contentions — a date that came after both the order and execution of

21

the venue transfer — already has passed, Plaintiff concludes that defendants’ invalidity

22

contentions are overdue. Plaintiff therefore requests that defendants’ invalidity contentions be

23

deemed late and that new deadlines be set for the service and justification of untimely invalidity

24

contentions (Dkt. No. 84).

25

Plaintiff is jumping the gun. As of the February 15 order transferring the case to this

26

district, the Patent Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas and the deadlines imposed by that

27

court were no longer controlling. E.g., U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc.,

28

No. C 10-03724 JW, Dkt. No. 475 at 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010) (Ware, J.). A new schedule for

1

this action will be set at the July 28 case management conference. In the meantime, the parties

2

should conduct a Rule 26 planning conference and should respond to the May 9 order regarding

3

the possible misjoinder of defendants. Deadlines under Patent L.R. 4.1 will be addressed in due

4

course. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

explains that the Texas court permitted counsel for defendant Ubid to withdraw on the basis that

7

the Ubid corporate entity had been dissolved. Based on plaintiff’s independent research,

8

however, plaintiff believes that Ubid still exists. As proof, plaintiff submitted a certificate issued

9

by the Illinois Secretary of State on May 4, 2011, stating that the corporation Ubid, Inc. was in

10

good standing in the state of Illinois. Plaintiff therefore “suggests the Court to summons them

11
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff also recently filed a “Notification of Defendant Ubid, Inc. Is Existing.” Plaintiff

6

United States District Court

5

[the Ubid attorneys] for an explanation” (Dkt. No. 81).

12

Plaintiff’s “notification” is not a motion. Although it “suggests” that the Court follow up

13

on the information disclosed, it does not request relief. Accordingly, no further action will be

14

taken on the notification. If plaintiff seeks specific relief from the Court regarding the matters

15

raised therein, then plaintiff should file a proper motion in proper form.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: May 16, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2