Pacer-Interesting strategy by Handal (Patent #108) against Microsemi requesting.
in response to
by
Message: Pacer: e.Digital Corporation v. Microsemi Corporation
"Judicial Notice" using Two previously strong positve patent #108 claim constructio(on all claims) and denial of previous motion denying defendant motion to stay pending Inter Parte Review.
ANTON HANDAL (Bar No. 113812)
[email protected]
PAMELA C. CHALK (Bar No. 216411)
[email protected]
GABRIEL HEDRICK (Bar No. 220649)
[email protected]
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B Street, Suite 2510
San Diego, California 92101
Tel: 619.544.6400
Fax: 619.696.0323
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Microsemi Corporation; and, Microsemi
Corp. – Memory And Storage Solutions,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: 3:15-cv-00319-H-BGS
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE AND ATTACHED
EXHIBITS A-C, SUBMITTED IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S
OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STAY PENDING INTER
PARTES REVIEW OF THE
PATENT-IN-SUIT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Date: August 3, 2015
Time: 10:30 am
Courtroom: 15A
Judge: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
Courtroom 15A (15th Floor - Annex)
TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”), by and through its
attorneys, hereby respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and/or all other applicable provisions of law as
[email protected]
PAMELA C. CHALK (Bar No. 216411)
[email protected]
GABRIEL HEDRICK (Bar No. 220649)
[email protected]
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B Street, Suite 2510
San Diego, California 92101
Tel: 619.544.6400
Fax: 619.696.0323
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Microsemi Corporation; and, Microsemi
Corp. – Memory And Storage Solutions,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: 3:15-cv-00319-H-BGS
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE AND ATTACHED
EXHIBITS A-C, SUBMITTED IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S
OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STAY PENDING INTER
PARTES REVIEW OF THE
PATENT-IN-SUIT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Date: August 3, 2015
Time: 10:30 am
Courtroom: 15A
Judge: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
Courtroom 15A (15th Floor - Annex)
TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”), by and through its
attorneys, hereby respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and/or all other applicable provisions of law as
requested herein when ruling on “Defendants Microsemi Corporation And
Microsemi Corp. – Memory And Storage Solutions’ Notice Of Motion
To Stay Pending Inter Partes Review”(“Motion”) (Dkt #22 et. seq.).
Defendants Microsemi Corporation and Microsemi Corp.– Memory and
Storage Solutions are collectively referred to hereafter as “Microsemi” or
“Defendants.”
U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 is referred to hereafter as “the ’108 patent” or
“patent-in-suit.”
I. STANDARD OF LAW
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that "[t]he court may judicially
notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally
known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned." "Judicially noticed facts often consist of matters of public record."
Botelho v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 692 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citations
omitted); see also W. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Heflin Corp., 797 F. Supp. 790,
792 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and/or all other applicable
provisions of law, e.Digital respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice
of the following:
1) The Court’s December 12, 2014 “Claim Construction Order”
concerning Claim 1 of the ‘108 patent, issued in the related case e.Digital
Corporation v. New Dane, et. al., Southern District of California, District Court
Case No. 3:13-cv-02897-H-BGS. (Dkt. #49, et seq.). A true and correct copy of
that order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2) The Court’s February 20, 2015 “Claim Construction Order”
concerning Claim 1 of the ‘108 patent, issued in the related case e.Digital Corp. v.
Microsemi Corp. – Memory And Storage Solutions’ Notice Of Motion
To Stay Pending Inter Partes Review”(“Motion”) (Dkt #22 et. seq.).
Defendants Microsemi Corporation and Microsemi Corp.– Memory and
Storage Solutions are collectively referred to hereafter as “Microsemi” or
“Defendants.”
U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 is referred to hereafter as “the ’108 patent” or
“patent-in-suit.”
I. STANDARD OF LAW
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that "[t]he court may judicially
notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally
known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned." "Judicially noticed facts often consist of matters of public record."
Botelho v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 692 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citations
omitted); see also W. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Heflin Corp., 797 F. Supp. 790,
792 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and/or all other applicable
provisions of law, e.Digital respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice
of the following:
1) The Court’s December 12, 2014 “Claim Construction Order”
concerning Claim 1 of the ‘108 patent, issued in the related case e.Digital
Corporation v. New Dane, et. al., Southern District of California, District Court
Case No. 3:13-cv-02897-H-BGS. (Dkt. #49, et seq.). A true and correct copy of
that order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2) The Court’s February 20, 2015 “Claim Construction Order”
concerning Claim 1 of the ‘108 patent, issued in the related case e.Digital Corp. v.
Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc., Southern District of California, District
Court Case No. 3:13-cv-2907-H-BGS. (Dkt. #58, et seq.). A true and correct copy
of that order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3) The Court’s February 5, 2015 “Order Denying Defendants’ Motion To
Stay Pending Inter Partes Review” issued in the related case e.Digital Corp. v.
Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc., Southern District of California, District
Court Case No. 3:13-cv-2907-H-BGS. (Dkt. #51, et seq.). A true and correct copy
of that order is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
III. CONCLUSION
e.Digital respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
matters set forth herein.
Dated: July 20, 2015
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
Court Case No. 3:13-cv-2907-H-BGS. (Dkt. #58, et seq.). A true and correct copy
of that order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3) The Court’s February 5, 2015 “Order Denying Defendants’ Motion To
Stay Pending Inter Partes Review” issued in the related case e.Digital Corp. v.
Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc., Southern District of California, District
Court Case No. 3:13-cv-2907-H-BGS. (Dkt. #51, et seq.). A true and correct copy
of that order is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
III. CONCLUSION
e.Digital respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
matters set forth herein.
Dated: July 20, 2015
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
21 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply