Ho Keung Tse v. Apple Inc., et al.

Filing 231

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL. Show Cause Response due by 8/4/2014. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 7/28/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OAKLAND DIVISION 6 7 HO KEUNG TSE, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 Case No: C 06-6573 SBA ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL vs. APPLE, INC., et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Ho Keung Tse (“Plaintiff”) brings the instant patent infringement action 14 against various Defendants alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,797 (“the ‘797 15 patent”). On December 11, 2013, Judge Susan Illston issued an Order finding that claims 16 1-5, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 23-26 of the ‘797 patent are invalid for lack of written description 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Ho Keung Tse v. Google, Inc., 2013 WL 6502478, at *6 (N.D. 18 Cal. 2013). On July 16, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Illston’s Order. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties shall show cause in writing why this 21 case should or should not be dismissed on the ground that the claims of the ‘797 patent at 22 issue in this case are invalid. The parties shall file briefs, not to exceed five (5) pages, by 23 no later than seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff is warned that the 24 failure to fully and timely comply with this Order will constitute grounds for dismissal of 25 this action. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7/28/2014 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District 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?