I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
1044
ORDER denying 978 Motion for Order to Show Cause. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff and Defendant each provide the Court with names of two (2) experts unaffiliated with any of the parties who are capable of determining whether Google's re-design of its infringing system is no more than a colorable variation ofthe adjudged infringing system by November 15, 2013. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 11/7/13. (afar)
_FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT (COUfiT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VI *GINI
fIAN0V - 7
Norfolk Division
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
L
2013
CLERK. U.S. c • i;::c, cjUrt
NORFfll K VA
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:1 lcv512
AOL INC., et aL,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion for Order to Show Cause under
Rule 37 for Noncompliance with August 13, 2013 Order (ECF No. 978). The parties have fully
briefed the issues. Ilaving reviewed the pleadings and held a hearing on the Motion to Shew
Cause, this matter is now ripe for judicial determination.
For the reasons stated in open court, the Motion to Show Cause is DENIED. The Court
ORDERS that Plaintiff and Defendant each provide the Court with names of two (2) experts
unaffiliated with any of the parties who are capable of determining whether Google's re-design
of its infringing system is no more than a colorable variation of the adjudged infringing system
by November 15, 2013.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel and parties of
record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Norfolk, Virginia
November rf .2013
Raymond A. lackson
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?