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