Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Intel Corporation v. Wi-Lan, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00184 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2009)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00184, Dkt. No. 145
Decided
April 16, 2009
Judge
Howard R. Lloyd, M.J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 114 Motion to Shorten Time; 142 Stipulation to Shorten Time. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009) Modified docket text on 4/16/2009 (ecg, COURT STAFF).[Transferred from California Nort…
Length
2 pages

2 * E-filed 4/16/09*

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 SAN JOSE DIVISION

9

INTEL CORPORATION,

10 Case No. CV 08-04555 JW (HRL)

Plaintiff,

tr 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S uo v. MOTION FOR AN ORDER an 12 SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION TO C i ro WI-LAN, INC., WI-LAN TECHNOLOGIES COMPEL; AND (2) SETTING HEARING t f c il a 13 CORPORATION, WI-LAN TECHNOLOGIES, ON MOTION TO COMPEL i C rts fo t INC. AND WI-LAN VI-CHIP CORP, cts 14 Re: Docket No. 114 i i D r iD Defendants. s e n 15 r t e h / a t r t o S N 16 e h d t e r o 17 On April 10, 2009, plaintiff Intel Corporation filed a motion to compel discovery t F i n U

18 relevant to defendant's motion to dismiss/transfer.

19 Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion for an expedited April 22, 2009 hearing

20 on the motion to compel. Defendant Wi-Lan opposes the request. Upon consideration of the

21 papers submitted by the parties, the court orders as follows:

22 1. The court does not find good cause has been shown to justify an expedited hearing. The

23 hearing is set for May 26, 2009, 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2.

24 2. Briefing on the motion shall proceed in accordance with the court's Civil Local Rules.

25

26 IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 Dated: 4/16/09 _________________________________

28 HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE SENT VIA ECF.

2

  • * Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel. 3

Dated: 4/16/09

4

/s/ mpk

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd 5

6

7

8

9

10

t 11 r u o a 12 C i n r o t f c il a 13 i C r f t o s t c 14 i i D r ts iD s e n 15 r t e h a t r t o S N 16 e h d t e r o 17 t F i n U

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Intel Corporation v. Wi-Lan, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00184 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2009).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00184-6
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00184-6

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.