From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Speedtrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jan 27, 2009
Case No. 06-CV-07336-PJH (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009)

Summary

granting stay where damages discovery had not started and trial date had not been set

Summary of this case from Orinda Int. Prop. USA Holding Gr. v. Sony Electronics

Opinion

Case No. 06-CV-07336-PJH.

January 27, 2009

HENNIGAN, BENNETT DORMAN LLP, Roderick G. Dorman (SBN 96908), Alan P. Block (SBN 143783), Marc Morris (SBN 183728), Omer Salik (SBN 223056), Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, SPEEDTRACK, INC.


[ PROPOSE D] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF SPEEDTRACK, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE'S DECISION ON ENDECA'S REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION [FED.R.EVID. 201]


Having considered Plaintiff SpeedTrack, Inc.'s request, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 201, to take judicial notice of the fact that the United States Patent and Trademark Office recently determined that the Kleinberger prior art reference does not raise any new substantial question of patentability of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360, as set forth in the Decision on Request for Reexamination dated January 12, 2009, and finding good cause thereon, the Court hereby GRANTS SpeedTrack's request and takes judicial notice of such fact.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900, Los Angeles, California 90017.

On January 21, 2009, all counsel of record who are registered ECF users were served with a copy of the foregoing document described as [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF SPEEDTRACK, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE'S DECISION ON ENDECA'S REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION via the Electronic Case Filing Program of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California per Local Rule 5-3.3.

The above-described document was also served on the parties indicated below, by FedEx only:

Chambers of the Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
USDC, San Francisco Division
Attn: Regarding SpeedTrack Litigation
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3483

Executed on January 21, 2009, at Los Angeles, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.


Summaries of

Speedtrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jan 27, 2009
Case No. 06-CV-07336-PJH (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009)

granting stay where damages discovery had not started and trial date had not been set

Summary of this case from Orinda Int. Prop. USA Holding Gr. v. Sony Electronics

granting stay where damages discovery had not started and trial date had not been set

Summary of this case from Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc.
Case details for

Speedtrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SPEEDTRACK, INC., Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., THE HERTZ…

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2009

Citations

Case No. 06-CV-07336-PJH (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009)

Citing Cases

Orinda Int. Prop. USA Holding Gr. v. Sony Electronics

have granted a stay in part because little discovery had been conducted, claim construction had not occurred,…

Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc.

However, even if NetApp is correct that the Court need not construe all three of the remaining claim terms,…