Message: Sam’s Club plans a safer credit card
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Case Nos.
13-cv-2902-H-BGS
13-cv-2905-H-BGS
13-cv-2906-H-BGS
13-cv-2930-H-BGS
13-cv-2941-H-BGS
13-cv-2942-H-BGS
13-cv-2943-H-BGS
vs.
G. SKILL INTERNATIONAL
ENTERPRISE CO., LTD.; and G.
SKILL USA, INC.,
Defendants.
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Order:
1) CONSOLIDATING CASES
FOR PRETRIAL PURPOSES,
and
2) SETTING A CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE.
vs.
INTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PNY ELECTRONICS, INC., d/b/a
PNY;
Defendants.
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRANSCEND INFORMATION,
INC.,
Defendant.
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WINTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VERBATIM AMERICA, LLC,
Defendant.
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation filed a complaint against
Defendants G. Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd. and G. Skill USA, Inc., alleging
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. G. Skill, Case No.
3:13-cv-2902-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendants filed their answer on April 25, 2014. (Id.
Doc. No. 14.)
On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant
Intel Corporation alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital
v. Intel, Case No. 3:13-cv-2905-H, Doc. No. 13.) The Court denied Defendant Intel’s
motion to dismiss on April 24, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 25.) Defendant Intel filed its
answer on May 7, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 26.)
On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant
Case 3:13-cv-02905-H-BGS Document 30 Filed 06/04/14 Page 2 of 4
Kingston Technology Company, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Kingston Tech., Case No. 3:13-cv-2906-H, Doc. No. 18.)
The Court denied Defendant Kingston’s motion to dismiss on May 19, 2014. (Id. Doc.
No. 27.) Defendant Kingston filed its answer on May 30, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 28.)
On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant
PNY Electronics, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See
e.Digital v. PNY, Case No. 3:13-cv-2930-H, Doc. No. 13.) The Court denied
Defendant PNY’s motion to dismiss on May 20, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 26.) Defendant
PNY filed its answer on June 3, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 27.)
On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant
Transcend Information, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See
e.Digital v. Transcend Info., Case No. 3:13-cv-2941-H, Doc. No. 15.) The Court
denied Defendant Transcend’s motion to dismiss on May 16, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 22.)
Defendant Transcend filed its answer on May 30, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 24.)
On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant
Wintec Industries, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See
e.Digital v. Wintec, Case No. 3:13-cv-2942-H, Doc. No. 15.) Defendant Wintec filed
its answer on April 29, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 20.)
On April 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant
Verbatim Americas, LLC alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See
e.Digital v. Verbatim, Case No. 3:13-cv-2943-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Verbatim
filed its answer on April 29, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 19.)
All seven of these cases concern the same patent. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42, the Court orders that these actions be consolidated for pre-trial
purposes absent further order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2).
The Court also tentatively schedules a telephonic case management conference
in this consolidated action for
Tuesday, June 10, 2014 at 10:30 a.m before Judge
Case 3:13-cv-02905-H-BGS Document 30 Filed 06/04/14 Page 3 of 4
Marilyn L. Huff. The Court will issue a tentative scheduling order in advance of this
tentative hearing date. The parties must meet and confer regarding the tentative
schedule no later than
Friday, June 6, 2014. The Plaintiff is responsible for initiating
the conference call. If a party objects to any dates or deadlines in the Court’s tentative
schedule as an irreconcilable conflict, the party must submit written objections to the
Court no later than
June 9, 2014. If a Defendant has no objections to the Court’s
tentative schedule, that party need not appear at the Court’s case management
conference or submit anything. If Plaintiff has no objections and elects not to
participate in the Court’s case management conference, it must notify the Court in
writing no later than
June 9, 2014.
The Court directs Plaintiff to initiate the telephonic case management conference
call. The Court further directs any parties appearing at the telephonic case management
conference to provide their phone numbers to Plaintiff prior to the conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED
.
DATED: June 4, 2014
________________________________
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply