Re: Pacer,Handal Request judicial Notice based on Federal rule 201..chazitz

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

doni

Rank: President [?]

Points: 76204 [?]

Votes: 138 Score: 3.3 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: Pacer,Handal Request judicial Notice based on Federal rule 201..chazitz

in response to

Re: Pacer,Handal Request judicial Notice based on Federal rule 201(example Intel ) !

chazitz

posted on Oct 03, 2014 02:17PM

Do you understand exhibit 19 as I have highlited?

(19) The statement made in “

Defendant Toshiba America Information

Systems, Inc.’s [Proposed] Order Granting Defendant Toshiba America

Information Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions”

(Dkt #37-21), “The Court,

having considered Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and the papers and arguments

submitted in support of and in opposition thereto, is of the opinion that Toshiba

America Information Systems, Inc.’s motion should be GRANTED pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation’s

Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Toshiba America Information

Systems, Inc. shall be

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

========================================================

"The statement made in" e.Digital is taking exception to a statement made by “The Court, the statement made is "motion should be GRANTED"

The defendants motion to sanction is in limbo and was not ruled on...

While in the same moment he ruled the case dismissed...he left comments that e.Digital objects to with regard to the defendants motion.

Whatever the sanctions might be about, e.Digital is following up with the fact, that the judge gave weight to the defendants with his comments and he did not formally rule.