From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nomadix, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 27, 2011
Case No. CV 09-08441 DDP (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. CV 09-08441 DDP (VBKx)

10-27-2011

NOMADIX, INC., Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; WAYPORT, INC., a Delaware corporation; IBAHN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD., a Canadian corporation; GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; a California corporation; LODGENET INTERACTIVE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; LODGENET STAYONLINE, INC., a Delaware corporation; ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.; a Delaware corporation; SUPERCLICK, INC., A Washington corporation; SUPERCLICK NETWORKS, INC., a Canadian corporation, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

[Docket No. 472]

Presently before the court is Defendant Hewlett Packard Company's Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction. There is no need to reach Plaintiff Nomadix, Inc.'s contention that Defendant's Motion is procedurally improper under Local Rule 7-18. The court concludes that its August 31, 2011 Claim Construction Order was correct on the merits. The court therefore DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DEAN D. PREGERSON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Nomadix, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 27, 2011
Case No. CV 09-08441 DDP (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)
Case details for

Nomadix, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Case Details

Full title:NOMADIX, INC., Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 27, 2011

Citations

Case No. CV 09-08441 DDP (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)