Emblaze Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation
Filing
32
MINUTE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS re 27 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Mediation by Emblaze Ltd. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 25, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
EMBLAZE LTD.,
Case No. 12-cv-05422-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
Re: Dkt. No. 27.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting ADR Process,
which was filed on January 24, 2013, before this case was reassigned. Dkt. No. 27. In it, the
15
parties agree to participate in mediation and agree to hold the mediation session by 60 days after
16
17
issuance of a claim construction order.
18
The Reassignment Order requires the parties to familiarize themselves with the Court's
19
standing orders and to file case management statements, either jointly or separately, within 15
20
days of the Reassignment Order. Dkt. No. 30. In their statement or statements, the parties are
21
ordered to address any deadlines in place before reassignment, and describe any requested
22
modifications of those dates. The parties are also directed to address the status of their negotiations
23
24
and discovery processes.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
2
3
4
The Court will be in a better position to evaluate the proper deadline for mediation after the
receipt of this information.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2013
5
6
________________________
Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
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?