Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid

Filing 69

ORDER for Joint Status Update by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 Case No. 14-cv-03228-EDL ORDER FOR JOINT STATUS UPDATE v. CEPHEID, Defendant. On January 7, 2015, this Court issued an Order granting Cepheid’s Motion to Stay Pending 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Inter Partes Review of the Patent-In-Suit and required the parties to file a joint status update by no 12 later than June 1, 2015. See Dkt. No. 63. On June 1, 2015, the parties timely filed a Joint Status 13 Update informing the Court that Cepheid’s petitions remained pending before the PTAB, with a 14 decision on whether to institute the inter partes review likely to issue by June 16, 2015. The parties 15 stated that they would “submit a further status report to the Court after the PTAB issues its decision. 16 The PTAB’s decision on IPR2015-00881 (claim 21), will likely issue no later than September 18, 17 2015.” Dkt. No. 64. The parties did not submit a further status update to the Court in September 18 2015, or any time thereafter. The parties also did not appear for an ADR phone conference on 19 November 3, 2015. The parties are hereby Ordered to file a Joint Status Update by no later than May 20 18, 2016 informing the Court of the status of the inter partes review proceedings, their views on 21 whether the stay of case should remain in place, and whether the case should be dismissed for failure 22 to prosecute. The pretrial conference set for September 27, 2016 and the trial date of October 24, 2016 23 are hereby vacated. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 4, 2016 27 28 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

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?