Re: Total of 567 pages ! Another attempt by Arcsoft for Motion to stay
in response to
by
Message: 2016 Google Tracker: Everything Google is working on for the new year
The Arcsoft Marman hearing differs by Dropcam in regard to patent # 618.
(United States Patent No. 8,315,618, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’618 patent”).
It is too late in this game Arcsoft filing for IPR. Only 2 weeks before Markman hearing in January 21, 2016 rushing to file for IPR !
I doubt the judge will honor this Motion in totality . JMHO
Note : Please read the following important paragraphs.
-----------------------------------------------
1) e.Digital Corporation v. Dropcam, Inc., Case Number: 3:14-cv-04922-
JST (“Dropcam Case”) (originally filed in the Southern District of California onJuly 1, 2014; transferred to the Northern District of California on or aboutNovember 5, 2014 pursuant to Court order; currently Both 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 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”).
However, the Dropcam Case also involves the following patent which is not asserted in This Filed Case:
1) United States Patent No. 8,315,618, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’618 patent”).
In good faith, e.Digital states that it does not believe that This Case and the Dropcam Case should be assigned to a single district court judge and/or that doing so will effect a saving of judicial effort or other economies given that:
1) Different, unrelated Defendants are involved in each case;
2) Different accused products are at issue and/or involved in each case;
and/or,
3) Different facts are at issue and/or involved in each case in light of the
fact that:
a) Different, unrelated Defendants are involved in each case;
b) The 618 patent is asserted in the Dropcam Case but is not
asserted in This Filed Case; and/or,
c) Different accused products are at issue.
JST (“Dropcam Case”) (originally filed in the Southern District of California onJuly 1, 2014; transferred to the Northern District of California on or aboutNovember 5, 2014 pursuant to Court order; currently Both 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 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”).
However, the Dropcam Case also involves the following patent which is not asserted in This Filed Case:
1) United States Patent No. 8,315,618, entitled “System and Method for
Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’618 patent”).
In good faith, e.Digital states that it does not believe that This Case and the Dropcam Case should be assigned to a single district court judge and/or that doing so will effect a saving of judicial effort or other economies given that:
1) Different, unrelated Defendants are involved in each case;
2) Different accused products are at issue and/or involved in each case;
and/or,
3) Different facts are at issue and/or involved in each case in light of the
fact that:
a) Different, unrelated Defendants are involved in each case;
b) The 618 patent is asserted in the Dropcam Case but is not
asserted in This Filed Case; and/or,
c) Different accused products are at issue.
e.Digital asserts that none of the claim constructions proposed by the parties is dispositive. the Joint Claim Construction Chart, filed herewith as Appendix A, contains each party’s proposed constructions of the disputed claim terms and phrases, together with an identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence proffered by the parties in support of their constructions.
14 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply