Case Nos.
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation filed a complaint against
Defendant Cavalry Storage, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108.
(See e.Digital v. Cavalry Storage, Case No. 3:13-cv-2892-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant
Cavalry Storage filed its answer on April 1, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 15.)
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Centon
Electronics, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v.
Centon Electronics, Case No. 3:13-cv-2894-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Centon
Electronics, Inc filed its answer on March 20, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 13.)
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Corsair
Memory, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v.
Corsair Memory, Case No. 3:13-cv-2896-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Corsair Memory
filed its answer on April 7, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 15.)
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants New Dane,
d/b/a Dane-Elec., Gigastone Corporation, and Dane Elec Corp. USA, a/k/a Dane Corp,
alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. New Dane, Case
No. 3:13-cv-2897-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendants Dane Elec Corp. USA and Gigastone
Corporation filed answers on April 7, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 15.) To date, Plaintiff has
not returned an executed summons of Defendant New Dane. (See id.)
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Eye-Fi, Inc.
alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Eye-Fi, Case No.
3:13-cv-2899-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Eye-Fi filed its answer on April 11, 2014.
(Id. Doc. No. 14.)
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Fusion-IO,
Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Fusion-IO,
Case No. 3:13-cv-2901-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Fusion-IO filed its answer on
March 17, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 15.)
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Mushkin,
Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Mushkin,
Case No. 3:13-cv-2914-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Mushkin filed its answer on March
21, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 14.)
On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Other World
Computing, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v.
Other World Computing, Case No. 3:13-cv-2915-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Other
World Computing filed its answer on March 21, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 13.)
On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Patriot
Memory, LLC alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v.
Patriot Memory, Case No. 3:13-cv-2916-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Patriot Memory
filed its answer on March 20, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 13.)
On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Silicon
Power Computer & Communications Inc. and Silicon Power Computer &
Communications USA, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See
e.Digital v. Silicon Power, Case No. 3:13-cv-2935-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendants Silicon
Power Computer & Communications Inc. and Silicon Power Computer &
Communications USA, Inc. filed their answer on April 8, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 12.)
On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Super Talent
Technology Corporation alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See
e.Digital v. Super Talent, Case No. 3:13-cv-2937-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Super
Talent filed its answer on March 7, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 11.)
On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Swissbit
AG and Swissbit NA, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See
e.Digital v. Swissbit, Case No. 3:13-cv-2938-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Swissbit NA,
Inc. filed its answer on April 10, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 11.) To date, Plaintiff has not
returned an executed summons of Defendant Swissbit AG. (See id.)
On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Seagate
Technology LLC, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital
v. Seagate, Case No. 3:13-cv-2946-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Seagate filed its answer
on March 20, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 16.)
All thirteen of these cases concern the same patent. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42, the Court orders that these actions be consolidated for pre-trial
purposes absent further order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2).
The Court also tentatively schedules a telephonic case management conference
in this consolidated action for
Marilyn L. Huff. The Court will issue a tentative scheduling order in advance of this
tentative hearing date. The parties must meet and confer regarding the tentative
initiating the conference call. If a party objects to any dates or deadlines in the Court’s
to the Court’s tentative schedule, that party need not appear at the Court’s case
management conference or submit anything. If Plaintiff has no objections and elects
not to participate in the Court’s case management conference, it must notify the Court
The Court directs Plaintiff to initiate the telephonic case management conference
call. The Court further directs any parties appearing at the telephonic case management
conference to provide their phone numbers to Plaintiff prior to the conference.