Infineon Technologies AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corporation

Filing 151

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SET DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND TO VACATE PRETRIAL DEADLINES; DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS REPORT. All deadlines are vacated. The parties are directed to file a status report by January 7, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 7, 2012.(mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 No. C 11-6239 MMC ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SET DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND TO VACATE PRETRIAL DEADLINES; DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS REPORT v. VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Defendant. / 17 18 Before the Court is plaintiff Infineon Technologies AG’s administrative “Motion to 19 Extend Time for Certain Pretrial Deadlines Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-3 and 7-11,” filed 20 October 31, 2012, by which motion plaintiff seeks (1) an order setting a deadline of 21 November 9, 2012 for the filing of any motion by defendant regarding plaintiff’s Second 22 Amended Infringement Contentions (“SAICs”), and (2) an order extending the claim 23 construction deadlines. Defendant Volterra Semiconductor Corporation has filed a 24 response, in which it opposes the former and, as to the latter, agrees that the current 25 deadlines should be vacated but opposes the setting of new deadlines at the current 26 juncture of the proceedings. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of, 27 and in response to the motion, the Court rules as follows. 28 To the extent plaintiff requests the Court set a November 9, 2012 deadline for 1 defendant to challenge or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s SAICs, the Court agrees with 2 defendant that any such request should be presented to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, 3 to whom all discovery matters have been referred. Accordingly, said request is hereby 4 DENIED without prejudice. 5 To the extent plaintiff requests the Court vacate the current claim construction 6 deadlines and reset new dates at this time, the Court finds the current deadlines should be 7 vacated, but agrees with defendant that it is premature to set a revised claim construction 8 schedule given the current posture of the case. Accordingly, said request is hereby 9 GRANTED in part, and the current deadlines are hereby VACATED; the parties are hereby 10 DIRECTED to file a Status Report, no later than January 7, 2012, apprising the Court as to 11 the status of the proceedings before Magistrate Judge Ryu and any other matters bearing 12 on the pretrial schedule. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: November 8, 2012 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?