My bad.

I momentarilly forgot what I was reading. BaNosser posted Acers' response to motion.

Thought I was reading the judges' observations and considerations.

"Even if some relief were justified, a four months delay is not. TPL’s motion is explicit that the four month continuance is not just to clear post-trial briefing but also to allow the ITC to reach a decision. Mot. p. 4:21-22. TPL’s request is a bald effort to put TPL’s action in its preferred forum—the ITC—ahead of the forum Acer chose first, the Northern District of California. This is a replay of TPL’s earlier effort to change venue to the Eastern District of Texas based on a later-filed complaint, and it should again be rejected. "

"TPL illogically argues that allowing the ITC to reach a decision will somehow narrow the issues for trial in this case, but admits that in fact the ITC action will have no preclusive effect on this action. Mot. p. 4:23-5:3. Since the ITC action has no preclusive effect, it cannot narrow any issues in this case."

"To the extent that this Court decides that any schedule change may be warranted, however, it should not change the schedule without first holding an additional Case Management Conference so the parties can be fully heard on the scope of any time extensions and the impact to the trial schedule."

Good catch. Thanks for the correction.