Rothchild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Filing 80

ORDER Administratively Terminating Pending Motions by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte: terminating 71 MOTION. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ROTHSCHILD STORAGE RETRIEVAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (U.S.A), INC., Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 12 ROTHSCHILD STORAGE RETRIEVAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. HTC CORP., et al., Defendants. 16 17 ROTHSCHILD STORAGE RETRIEVAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, 18 19 20 Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., et al. 21 Defendants. 22 ROTHSCHILD STORAGE RETRIEVAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, 23 Plaintiff, 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 15-cv-00373-EDL Case No. 15-cv-00539-EDL v. 10 11 Case No. 15-cv-00234-EDL v. APPLE, INC. Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-00541-EDL ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS 1 On May 6, 2015, this Court stayed these four related patent infringement lawsuits brought 2 by non-practicing entity Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC (“Rothschild”) against 3 HTC Corporation (“HTC”), Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (“Sony”), Apple Inc. 4 (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) pending inter partes review by the Patent 5 Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Motions for judgment 6 on the pleadings were pending in three of the four cases at the time the stay was imposed. See 15- 7 cv-00234 Dkt. #74; 15-cv-00539 Dkt. # 76; 15-cv-00541 Dkt. # 71. These motions are hereby 8 administratively terminated, and may be re-filed if appropriate when and if the stay is lifted. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 28, 2015 12 ________________________ ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge 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?