From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vigilos, LLC v. Sling Media, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jul 11, 2012
Case No. 4:11-cv-04117-SBA (EDL) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 4:11-cv-04117-SBA (EDL)

07-11-2012

Vigilos, LLC Plaintiff, v. Sling Media, Inc. Defendant.

RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster, Calif. State Bar No. 181,067 Bruce D. Kuyper, Calif. State Bar No. 144,969 Benjamin T. Wang, Calif. State Bar No. 228,712 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Vigilos, LLC


RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

Marc A. Fenster, Calif. State Bar No. 181,067

Bruce D. Kuyper, Calif. State Bar No. 144,969

Benjamin T. Wang, Calif. State Bar No. 228,712

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Vigilos, LLC

[PROPOSED] ORDER TAKING OFF-

CALENDAR THE HEARING ON

VIGILOS' MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANTS TO (1) COMPLY WITH

PATENT L.R. 3-4(a) AND (2) PRODUCE

DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION [CIVIL

L.R. 7-7(e)]

In accordance with Civil L.R. 7-7(e), the hearing on Plaintiff Vigilos, LLC's Motion to Compel (doc. 104), which had been set for July 31, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. (doc. 106), is taken off-calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Vigilos, LLC v. Sling Media, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Jul 11, 2012
Case No. 4:11-cv-04117-SBA (EDL) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Vigilos, LLC v. Sling Media, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Vigilos, LLC Plaintiff, v. Sling Media, Inc. Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Jul 11, 2012

Citations

Case No. 4:11-cv-04117-SBA (EDL) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)

Citing Cases

Eon Corp IP Holding LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.

The Local Patent Rules do "not tolerate broad categorical definitions like 'mobile devices running Android.'"…

Asetek Danmark A/S v. Coolit Sys.

“For infringement contentions to satisfy Patent L.R. 3-1, plaintiff [must] compare an accused product to its…