`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 15-cv-01277-BLF
`Related Case Nos. 16-cv-01578-BLF; 16-cv-
`01579-BLF; 16-cv-01580-BLF; 16-cv-
`01581-BLF; 16-cv-02252-BLF
`
`ORDER (1) VACATING HEARINGS ON
`MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STAY, (2)
`CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
`CONFERENCE TO NOVEMBER 3, 2016,
`AND (3) ORDER RE: CONTESTED
`ISSUES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-02252-BLF Document 94 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, et
`al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the Court finds Dr. Flamm’s motion to dismiss in Case 15-
`
`01277 and the joint motions to stay in the above-captioned cases suitable for submission without
`
`oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 28, 2016. The Court also
`
`CONTINUES the case management conference to November 3, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. The Court
`
`further rules on identified issues in the Fourth Supplemental Case Management Statement as
`
`follows:
`
`1. In regard to § 8B. Depositions, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for 32 hours of
`
`deposition for Dr. Flamm. Absent Defendants’ agreement to limit themselves to 32 hours
`
`of total deposition time, Dr. Flamm would be subject to six 7-hour depositions.
`
`2. In regard to § 12 ADR, the requirement to commence ADR is deferred until after the Court
`
`rules on the motions to stay.
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-02252-BLF Document 94 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`3. In regard to § 17 Scheduling, all case scheduling is deferred until the next CMC which will
`
`be held after the Court rules on the motion to stay. Discovery shall proceed pursuant to the
`
`provisions of the Patent Local Rules.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: July 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court