Sun Microsystems Inc., v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. et al

Filing 754

ORDER Setting Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 1/11/2010. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ This Document Also Relates to: Unisys Corp. v. Hynix et al., C 06-2915 PJH All American Semiconductor v. Hynix et al., C 07-1200 PJH Edge Electronics v. Hynix et al., C 07-1207 PJH Jaco Electronics v. Hynix et al., C 07-1212 PJH DRAM Claims Liquidation Trust v. Hynix et al., C 07-1381 PJH _______________________________/ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and Civil L. R. 1610, a Case Management Conference will be held in these cases on January 28, 2010, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. The purpose of the case management conference is to confer with the parties regarding the status of the pending litigation, including any ongoing settlement proceedings, and to set a hearing scheduling in connection with all pending matters in the above-referenced actions. In advance of the case management conference, the court has reviewed the underlying dockets. Based on the information contained therein, a summary of the dismissals thus far entered in each case, and the named defendants currently active in each, is as follows: SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff, No. C 06-1665 PJH ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sun Microsystems v. Hynix: Action terminated July 14, 2009. Honeywell Int'l v. Hynix: Action terminated September 12, 2007. Unisys v. Hynix: Dismissals have been filed by: Mitsubishi (11/21/07); Winbond (1/17/08); Mosel (1/18/08); Nanya (7/17/09); and Infineon (12/8/09). The docket furthermore indicates that Elpida was terminated from the action on February 27, 2008, and that Hynix is the only entity defendant who remains pending. It also appears to the court, however, that Elpida's termination on the docket is mistaken and that it, too, actually remains as a pending entity defendant, since neither the docket nor the court's own record-keeping indicates that any entry of dismissal as to Elpida has been filed. Counsel are thus ordered to clarify this discrepancy to the court, as instructed below. All American Semiconductor v. Hynix: Dismissals have been filed by: Mitsubishi (11/16/07); Winbond (5/28/08); Mosel (5/28/08); Elpida (4/30/09); and Infineon (12/10/09). The entity defendants which remain pending are: Hynix; Nanya; Micron; and NEC. Edge Electronics v. Hynix: Dismissals have been filed by: Mitsubishi (11/16/07); Winbond (1/17/08); Mosel (1/18/08); Samsung (12/11/08); Elpida (3/24/09); Nanya (8/4/09); Hynix (8/11/09); and Infineon (1/6/10). There appear to be no remaining entity defendants, and case termination appears warranted. Jaco Electronics v. Hynix: Dismissals have been filed by: Mitsubishi (11/13/07); Winbond (1/17/08); Mosel (1/18/08); Elpida (3/24/09); Nanya (8/4/09); Hynix (8/11/09); and Infineon (1/5/10). The entity defendants which remain pending are: Micron; and NEC.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DRAM Claims Liquidation Trust v. Hynix: Dismissals have been filed by: Mitsubishi (11/16/07); Winbond (1/17/08); Hitachi (1/17/08); Mosel (4/9/08); Samsung (8/18/08); Elpida (3/24/09); Nanya (7/17/09); Hynix (7/24/09); NEC (11/27/07 and 5/13/08); and Infineon (12/4/09). The entity defendants which remain pending are: Micron; and Crucial. The parties are instructed to compare the foregoing summary of dismissals with their own files, and to cross-check for accuracy. Any discrepancy shall be brought to the court's attention at the case management conference, and in a joint case management statement to be submitted by counsel. Counsel are instructed to meet and confer prior to the filing of same, and to file their case management statement with the court not less than seven (7) days before the conference. Only those parties with matters currently pending need appear at the conference.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

3