From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Innovus Prime LLC v. Panasonic Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 21, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-0660 RMW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-0660 RMW

03-21-2013

INNOVUS PRIME LLC, Plaintiff, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER J. COX (Bar No. 151650) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP DAVID L. YOHAI (Admitted pro hac vice) ADAM C. HEMLOCK (Admitted pro hac vice) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Attorneys for Defendants, PANASONIC CORPORATION AND PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA


CHRISTOPHER J. COX (Bar No. 151650)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
DAVID L. YOHAI (Admitted pro hac vice)
ADAM C. HEMLOCK (Admitted pro hac vice)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Attorneys for Defendants,
PANASONIC CORPORATION AND
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA

STIPULATION AND []

ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5:

The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:

Court Processes:

[ ] Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
[ ] Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
[•] Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is

appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR must participate in an ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5).

Private Process: [ ] Private ADR (please identify process and provider) ________________________ The parties agree to hold the ADR session by: [×] the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.) [ ] other requested deadline ________________________

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

By: ________________________

Christopher J. Cox

201 Redwood Shores Parkway

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Attorneys for Defendant|

Panasonic Corporation and

Panasonic Corporation of North America

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. CARPENTER

LLC

________________________

John W. Carpenter

12 Metairie Court

Metairie, LA 70001-3032

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Innovus Prime LLC

[] ORDER

[×] The parties' stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED.

[ ] The parties' stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Summaries of

Innovus Prime LLC v. Panasonic Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 21, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-0660 RMW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)
Case details for

Innovus Prime LLC v. Panasonic Corp.

Case Details

Full title:INNOVUS PRIME LLC, Plaintiff, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-0660 RMW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)