Lam Research Corporation v. Flamm

Filing 140

ORDER (1) VACATING HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STAY, (2) CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO NOVEMBER 3, 2016, AND (3) ORDER RE: CONTESTED ISSUES. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/22/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9

LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DANIEL L. FLAMM, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

DANIEL L. FLAMM,
Plaintiff,

15
16
17

v.
GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
Defendant.

18
19

DANIEL L. FLAMM,

20
21

Plaintiff,
v.

22

INTEL CORPORATION,

23

Defendant.

24

DANIEL L. FLAMM,

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,
INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-01277-BLF
Related Case Nos. 16-cv-01578-BLF; 16-cv01579-BLF; 16-cv-01580-BLF; 16-cv01581-BLF; 16-cv-02252-BLF
ORDER (1) VACATING HEARINGS ON
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STAY, (2)
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE TO NOVEMBER 3, 2016,
AND (3) ORDER RE: CONTESTED
ISSUES

Defendant.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DANIEL L. FLAMM,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DANIEL L. FLAMM,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, et
al.,
Defendants.

17

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the Court finds Dr. Flamm’s motion to dismiss in Case 15-

18
01277 and the joint motions to stay in the above-captioned cases suitable for submission without
19
oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 28, 2016. The Court also
20
CONTINUES the case management conference to November 3, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. The Court
21
further rules on identified issues in the Fourth Supplemental Case Management Statement as
22
follows:
23
24

1. In regard to § 8B. Depositions, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for 32 hours of
deposition for Dr. Flamm. Absent Defendants’ agreement to limit themselves to 32 hours

25
of total deposition time, Dr. Flamm would be subject to six 7-hour depositions.
26
2. In regard to § 12 ADR, the requirement to commence ADR is deferred until after the Court
27
rules on the motions to stay.
28
2

1

3. In regard to § 17 Scheduling, all case scheduling is deferred until the next CMC which will

2

be held after the Court rules on the motion to stay. Discovery shall proceed pursuant to the

3

provisions of the Patent Local Rules.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: July 22, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3