Zions Bancorporation v. U.S. Ethernet Innovations LLC

Filing 98

ORDER re (95 in 5:10-cv-03481-JW) Notice (Other) filed by U.S. Ethernet Innovations LLC. Signed by Judge James Ware on January 20, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER RE. NOTICE REGARDING
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION PROGRAM

Acer, Inc., et al,

14
15

NO. C 10-03724 JW
NO. C 10-05254 JW
NO. C 10-03481 JW

/
AT&T, Inc., et al.,

16
Defendants.

17
18

/
Zions Bancorporation, et al.,

19
20
21

Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC,

22

Defendant.

23

/

24
25
26

On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff in the above-captioned cases filed a Notice Regarding
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.1 In its Notice, Plaintiff contends that it is “unclear”

27
1

28

(Notice Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Multi-Option Program, hereafter,
“Notice,” Docket Item No. 95 in No. C 10-3481 JW.)

1

whether these actions remain assigned to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)

2

program. (Id. at 2.) Further, Plaintiff contends that it has been “unable to reach an agreement” with

3

Defendants on “any form of ADR process,” and “requests clarification” regarding the status of these

4

actions with regard to ADR. (Id. at 2-3.) Defendants respond that there is “no current requirement

5

for the parties to participate in ADR in these cases,” and that the Court “should not require the

6

multitude of defendants . . . to submit to ADR until after the Court determines the appropriate

7

structure” for the cases.2

8
9

Upon review, the Court finds that requiring the parties to engage in the ADR process would
be premature at this time. In its May 11, 2011 Order, the Court explained that it had “repeatedly
emphasized that it intends to initially limit this action to claim construction proceedings that will be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

binding on all parties in order to assist the Court in identifying which parties are the proper

12

defendants.”3 Thus, it would be premature to require Defendants to engage in the ADR process,

13

insofar as this action is still at the stage of claim construction proceedings.

14
15

Accordingly, the Court finds that this action is not subject to the ADR process at this time
and removes any pending referral to the ADR program.

16
17

Dated: January 20, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

(Response to Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Multi-Option
Program at 1, Docket Item No. 96 in No. C 10-3481 JW.)
3

27

(Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of the Patent Scheduling Order at 2,
Docket Item No. 55 in No. C 10-3481 JW.)

28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Andy Tindel [e-mail]
Anthony H. Son [e-mail]
Ashlea Pflug [e-mail]
Barry Kenneth Shelton [e-mail]
Benjamin Charles Elacqua [e-mail]
Brian Christopher Claassen [e-mail]
Bruce A Smith [e-mail]
Charlene Marie Morrow [e-mail]
Charles Ainsworth [e-mail]
Christopher Frederick Jeu [e-mail]
Christopher Needham Cravey [e-mail]
Christopher Ronald Noyes [e-mail]
Craig Steven Summers [e-mail]
Danny Lloyd Williams [e-mail]
Darryl Michael Woo [e-mail]
David J Healey [e-mail]
David J. Healey [e-mail]
David Lee Gann [e-mail]
David T McDonald [e-mail]
David T Pollock [e-mail]
Deron R Dacus [e-mail]
Dominic E. Massa [e-mail]
Douglas R. Young [e-mail]
E Joseph Benz [e-mail]
Eric Louis Toscano [e-mail]
Garland T. Stephens [e-mail]
Harold H Davis [e-mail]
Hector J. Ribera [e-mail]
Hiep Huu Nguyen [e-mail]
Hsiang H. Lin [e-mail]
Irfan A Lateef [e-mail]
Irfan Ahmed Lateef [e-mail]
Jack Wesley Hill [e-mail]
Jack Wesley Hill [e-mail]
James Patrick Brogan [e-mail]
Jason S Jackson [e-mail]
Jeffrey Fuming Yee [e-mail]
Jeffrey K. Joyner [e-mail]
Jennifer Parker Ainsworth [e-mail]
Jessica M. Kattula [e-mail]
John Christopher Herman [e-mail]
John K. Grant [e-mail]
John Philip Brinkmann [e-mail]
John W Thornburgh [e-mail]
Jonah D Mitchell [e-mail]
Jonah Dylan Mitchell [e-mail]
Jordan Jaffe [e-mail]
Karl J Kramer [e-mail]
Kevin P.B. Johnson [e-mail]
Kimball R Anderson [e-mail]
Kyle D Chen [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Kyung Kim [e-mail]
Lam Khanh Nguyen [e-mail]
Laura Katherine Carter [e-mail]
Lillian J Pan [e-mail]
Lionel Marks Lavenue [e-mail]
Mahmoud Munes Tomeh [e-mail]
Mark Daniel Selwyn [e-mail]
Marko R Zoretic [e-mail]
Matthew Clay Harris [e-mail]
Matthew J. Brigham [e-mail]
Michael J Newton [e-mail]
Michael J. Bettinger [e-mail]
Michael L Brody [e-mail]
Nicholas James Nugent [e-mail]
Patricia Kane Schmidt [e-mail]
Peter M Jones [e-mail]
Ray R. Zado [e-mail]
Richard T Ting [e-mail]
Robert Christopher Bunt [e-mail]
Robert M Parker [e-mail]
Roderick Bland Williams [e-mail]
Roger Brian Craft [e-mail]
Ruben Singh Bains [e-mail]
Ryan K. Walsh [e-mail]
Scott D. Baker [e-mail]
Scott Richard Mosko [e-mail]
Sean Sang-Chul Pak [e-mail]
Seth M Sproul [e-mail]
Seth McCarthy Sproul [e-mail]
Steven S. Baik [e-mail]
Thomas J. Friel [e-mail]
Thomas John Ward [e-mail]
Thomas John Ward [e-mail]
Timothy Paar Walker [e-mail]
Todd Richard Gregorian [e-mail]
William F. Lee [e-mail]

19
20

Dated: January 20, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

21
By:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy