Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion Corporation
Filing
387
ORDER 377 Motion for Clarification is CLARIFIED in accordance with this order. Please see attached for details. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
10
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
11
v.
12
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION
CORPORATION,
13
Defendant and Counterclaimant
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:06-CV-00698-LRH-VPC
ORDER
15
Before the court is plaintiff and counter-defendant Server Technology, Inc.’s (“STI”) motion for
16
clarification on the court’s order denying its motion to dismiss defendant and counter-claimant American
17
Power Conversion Corp.’s (“APC”) fifth counterclaim for false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292 (Doc.
18
#3691). Doc. #377.
19
I.
20
Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff and counter-defendant STI brought the underlying patent infringement action against
21
defendant and counter-claimant APC. In response, APC counterclaimed that STI falsely marked certain
22
product literature as patented. Subsequently, STI filed a motion to dismiss APC’s counterclaim for false
23
marking. Doc. #340.
24
On July 26, 2012, the court denied STI’s motion to dismiss finding that APC had sufficiently
25
26
1
Refers to the court’s docket number.
1
alleged false marking. See Doc. #369. Thereafter, STI filed the present motion for clarification of the
2
court’s order. Doc. #377.
3
II.
4
5
Discussion
In its motion for clarification, STI requests further clarification on whether or not the court would
rule separately on its “in the alternative” argument for summary judgment. See Doc. #377.
6
The court now takes this opportunity to clarify its prior order. At no time did the court consider,
7
and it will not consider, STI’s prior motion as one for summary judgment. Discovery on the issue of false
8
marking is currently underway and expert depositions and reports have not been completed. It would be
9
inappropriate to rule on summary judgment on the limited record at this time. Therefore, the court shall
10
11
not issue a separate order at this time.
That being said, however, the court is not precluding separately filed summary judgment motions
12
by either party after the close of discovery. Accordingly, the court shall grant both parties leave to file a
13
motion for summary judgment on APC’s false marking counterclaim within thirty (30) days after the close
14
of extended discovery.
15
16
17
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that STI’s motion for clarification (Doc. #377) is CLARIFIED
in accordance with this order.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED this 16th day of October, 2012.
20
21
22
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
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?