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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al v. United Module Corp. et al, No. 2:11-cv-00331 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2011)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:11-cv-00331, Dkt. No. 31
Decided
March 7, 2011
Judge
Koh, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER Seeking Clarification re 64 Joint Stipulation for Stay and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Parties' Response Required by
Length
3 pages

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA a 11 n r

o trufil 12 SAN JOSE DIVISION oa CC

13 tf co ir tc MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and Related Cases: tsiirt 14 SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., D siD CASE NO.: CV-10-04241-LHK set n 15 Plaintiffs, atre CASE NO.: CV-10-05196-LHK Sh 16 v. t dr

o CASE NO.: CV-10-05290-LHK

eN t in e 17 UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, Uht LLC, CASE NO.: CV-11-00430-LHK r 18 o F

Defendants.

19 ORDER SEEKING

CLARIFICATION REGARDING

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCOR, INC.,

20 PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION

NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., and

FOR STAY AND ALTERNATIVE

ANALOG DEVICES, INC.

21 DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Plaintiffs,

22

v.

23

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,

24

LLC,

25

Defendants.

26

27

21 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., TSMC NORTH

2 AMERICA, and UBICOM, INC.,

3 Plaintiffs,

4 v.

5 UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,

LLC,

6

Defendants.

7

8 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

a 11 i n

ro UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, t rufil 12 LLC, oa CC tc fo 13 Defendants. i rt c

ti 14 sr it Ds i

D s 15 e tn ar te ht During the March 3, 2011 hearing on the pending motions, all parties indicated they may be S 16 dr o

eN t in e 17 willing to stay these cases and participate in alternative dispute resolution. On March 7, 2011, the Uh t r 18 oF parties filed a stipulation seeking stay of these related cases until June 6, 2011. See March 7, 2011

19

Joint Stipulation [dkt. #64]. The parties state that they will attempt to agree on an ADR process, 20

and “if such an agreement is reached,” they will engage in some form of ADR. 21

The Court is prepared to rule on the pending motions, and will not delay its ruling based on 22

speculative representations that the parties may engage in ADR. If, however, the parties select a 23

specific form of ADR by Thursday, March 10, 2011, the Court will defer ruling upon the pending 24

25 motions until June 6, 2011. Otherwise, the Court will issue its ruling promptly. The parties shall

26

27

31 file their election of how they wish to proceed by March 10, 2011. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

4 Dated: March 7, 2011 _________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

5

United States District Judge 6

7

8

9

10

a 11 i n r

o t rf 12 ui l

oa CC

13 tf co i rt c

ti 14 sr it Ds i

D s 15 e tn ar te Sh 16 t dr o

eN t i 17 ne Uh t r 18 o F

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

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al v. United Module Corp. et al, No. 2:11-cv-00331 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2011).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_11-cv-00331-6
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_11-cv-00331-6

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.