From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Prop. Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Sep 14, 2010
Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 JF/HRL (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2010)

Summary

concluding that the moving party was not diligent where it took three months from the time it began review of its contentions to when it sought amendment

Summary of this case from Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

Opinion

Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 JF/HRL.

September 14, 2010


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [Docket No. 178]

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.


Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 and the stipulated protective order entered in this case, (Docket No. 142), Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal exhibits 13 through 29 to the declaration of Jeffrey Ratinoff in support of Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion for leave to amend infringement contentions. Defendants submit the declaration of Mac Leckrone, the president and chief operating officer of Defendant Alliacense Limited, who explains the need for confidentiality of the exhibits at issue. (Docket No. 185.) Accordingly, the instant motion will be granted, and the exhibits may be filed under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/13/2010


Summaries of

Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Prop. Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Sep 14, 2010
Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 JF/HRL (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2010)

concluding that the moving party was not diligent where it took three months from the time it began review of its contentions to when it sought amendment

Summary of this case from Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

denying leave to amend infringement contentions; "Because TPL has not demonstrated diligence, 'the inquiry should end.'"

Summary of this case from Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Case details for

Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Prop. Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC. Plaintiffs, v…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Sep 14, 2010

Citations

Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 JF/HRL (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2010)

Citing Cases

Ziptronix, Inc. v. OmniVision Techs., Inc.

Only if the moving party is able to show diligence may the court consider the prejudice to the non-moving…

Ziptronix, Inc. v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc.

Pat. L.R. 3-6. Only if the moving party is able to show diligence may the court consider the prejudice to the…