Re: PACER (digEcor)
in response to
by
Message: Re: PACER (digEcor)
Thanks silver ,
Here from pacer describe why DM is against combined trial
e.Digital filed the
Vivitar
Action for patent infringement on September 7, 2007. In the
Vivitar
Action, e.Digital chose to name only Vivitar as a defendant. (See
Doc. No. 1
[Complaint]). Six months later, on March 4, 2008, eDigital filed the
Avid Action. (See
Docket
in
Avid Action, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1). In the
Avid
Action, e.Digital chose to name a group of defendants including Avid Technology, Inc., Casio America, Inc., LG Electronics USA Inc., Nikon, Inc., Olympus America, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Sanyo North America Corporation. (
Id.). In both the Vivitar
and
Avid
Actions, e.Digital asserted the same patents, i.e
., U.S. Patent Nos. 5,491,774; 5,742,737;
5,787,445; and 5,839,108 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”); however, the scopes of infringing products in the two cases are different. In the
Vivitar
Action, e.Digital accuses a narrow set of
digital cameras and camcorders offered by a single defendant -- Vivitar. In the
Avid
Action,
e.Digital accuses a much broader set of digital cameras, camcorders, personal digital recorders, personal digital assistants and cell phones, among other products offered by that group of defendants. Procedurally, the cases also have very different postures. The
Vivitar
Action is well
underway. A scheduling order was agreed to by the parties and submitted to the Court for approval on May 16, 2008. (
See
Doc. No. 21). Pursuant to that order, e.Digital served its
infringement contentions on May 16, 2008 and Vivitar served its invalidity contentions on July 3, 2008. Furthermore, the parties are required to exchange their Proposed Terms and Claim Elements on July 10, 2008 and offer proposed claim constructions on July 30, 2008. (
Id.
). The
3
Avid
Action, on the other hand, has yet to substantively proceed. (See Ex. 1 hereto). In the
Avid
Action, the Court has not scheduled an Initial Status Conference, a schedule has not been discussed, and the parties have not exchanged infringement or invalidity contentions. (
Id.
). In
other words, Vivitar proposes to consolidate its own case that already is well underway and moving forward with the
Avid
Action that has yet to get out of the starting gate.
5 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply