Pacer,Handal requesting single judge for all 3 cases with same patents infringer
in response to
by
Message: Pacer,Handal requesting single judge for all 3 cases with same patents infringer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ArcSoft, Inc., dba as Closeli and as
simplicam.
Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-cv-00056- BEN-DHB
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S AMENDED
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Assigned to the Honorable
Judge Roger T. Benitez
Courtroom 5A (5th Floor Schwartz)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ArcSoft, Inc., dba as Closeli and as
simplicam.
Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-cv-00056- BEN-DHB
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S AMENDED
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Assigned to the Honorable
Judge Roger T. Benitez
Courtroom 5A (5th Floor Schwartz)
TO THE COURT, THE PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.1(f), Plaintiff, e.Digital Corporation
(“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”) and its counsel hereby identify the following cases
which may be considered related to the above-entitled matter (“ArcSoft Case”)
and, in doing so, hereby amends its previously filed notice:
1) e.Digital Corporation v. Dropcam, Inc., Case Number: 3:14-cv-
04922-JST (“Dropcam Case”) (originally filed in the Southern District of
California on July 1, 2014; transferred to the Northern District of California on or
about November 5, 2014 pursuant to the Court order of the Honorable Judge Roger
T. Benitez of the Southern District of California; currently pending in the Northern
District before the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar, Courtroom 9 - 19th Floor, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Telephone Number: (415)522-
2036); and,
2) e.Digital Corporation v. Digital Corporation v. ShenZhen Gospell
Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd. (dba Oco Camera), Case Number 4:15-cv-00691-
JST (“the Oco Case”) (filed February 13, 2015 in the Northern District of
California and currently pending before the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar,
Courtroom 9 - 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102,
Telephone Number: (415)522-2036)).
The ArcSoft Case, Dropcam Case, and Oco Case involve different
Defendants. All three cases involve the following patents:
1) United States Patent No. 8,306,514, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’514 patent”).
2) United States Patent No. 8,311,522, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’522 patent”).
3) United States Patent No. 8,311,523, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’523 patent”).
4) United States Patent No. 8,311,524, entitled “System and Method
Case 3:15-cv-00056-BEN-DHB Document 18 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 4
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S Case No. 3:15-CV-00056- BEN-DHB
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B. STREET
SUITE 2510
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL: 619.544.6400
FAX: 619.696.0323
for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’524 patent”); and,
5) United States Patent No. 8,315,619, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’619 patent”).
Local Civil Rule 40.1 (a) states in pertinent part, “The judge to whom a case
is assigned, or the chief judge of the district, may transfer such a case at any time
to a consenting judge in the interest of efficient administration of the judicial
business of the district.”
As required by Local Civil Rule 40.1(f), Plaintiff further states the
following: Assigning these cases to a single judge is likely to effect a saving of judicial effort. Since each case involves the same patents, pre-Markman discovery and court proceedings can be efficiently consolidated to avoid unnecessarily duplicative discovery, multiple hearings, and potentially conflicting claim construction rulings. In addition, a single judge would have the flexibility to consider consolidating certain pre-trial and trial proceedings to avoid multiple
proceedings on issues, e.g., patent validity, that may be or are common to all defendants.
Upon information and belief, the lowest numbered case with respect to this case and the other cases listed above is the Dropcam Case. The Dropcam Case is currently assigned to the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar in the Northern District of California.
Dated: May 4, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Anton N. Handal
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.1(f), Plaintiff, e.Digital Corporation
(“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”) and its counsel hereby identify the following cases
which may be considered related to the above-entitled matter (“ArcSoft Case”)
and, in doing so, hereby amends its previously filed notice:
1) e.Digital Corporation v. Dropcam, Inc., Case Number: 3:14-cv-
04922-JST (“Dropcam Case”) (originally filed in the Southern District of
California on July 1, 2014; transferred to the Northern District of California on or
about November 5, 2014 pursuant to the Court order of the Honorable Judge Roger
T. Benitez of the Southern District of California; currently pending in the Northern
District before the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar, Courtroom 9 - 19th Floor, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Telephone Number: (415)522-
2036); and,
2) e.Digital Corporation v. Digital Corporation v. ShenZhen Gospell
Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd. (dba Oco Camera), Case Number 4:15-cv-00691-
JST (“the Oco Case”) (filed February 13, 2015 in the Northern District of
California and currently pending before the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar,
Courtroom 9 - 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102,
Telephone Number: (415)522-2036)).
The ArcSoft Case, Dropcam Case, and Oco Case involve different
Defendants. All three cases involve the following patents:
1) United States Patent No. 8,306,514, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’514 patent”).
2) United States Patent No. 8,311,522, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’522 patent”).
3) United States Patent No. 8,311,523, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’523 patent”).
4) United States Patent No. 8,311,524, entitled “System and Method
Case 3:15-cv-00056-BEN-DHB Document 18 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 4
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S Case No. 3:15-CV-00056- BEN-DHB
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B. STREET
SUITE 2510
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL: 619.544.6400
FAX: 619.696.0323
for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’524 patent”); and,
5) United States Patent No. 8,315,619, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’619 patent”).
Local Civil Rule 40.1 (a) states in pertinent part, “The judge to whom a case
is assigned, or the chief judge of the district, may transfer such a case at any time
to a consenting judge in the interest of efficient administration of the judicial
business of the district.”
As required by Local Civil Rule 40.1(f), Plaintiff further states the
following: Assigning these cases to a single judge is likely to effect a saving of judicial effort. Since each case involves the same patents, pre-Markman discovery and court proceedings can be efficiently consolidated to avoid unnecessarily duplicative discovery, multiple hearings, and potentially conflicting claim construction rulings. In addition, a single judge would have the flexibility to consider consolidating certain pre-trial and trial proceedings to avoid multiple
proceedings on issues, e.g., patent validity, that may be or are common to all defendants.
Upon information and belief, the lowest numbered case with respect to this case and the other cases listed above is the Dropcam Case. The Dropcam Case is currently assigned to the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar in the Northern District of California.
Dated: May 4, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Anton N. Handal
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
18 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply