`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-2 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-02460-LHK Document 95 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 1Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-2 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
`RELATE
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 88
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court DENIES Apple’s motion to relate the instant case to Apple Inc. v. VoIP-
`
`Pal.com, Inc., No. 21-CV-05110-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2021).
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 25, 2021
`
`______________________________________
`
`LUCY H. KOH
`United States District Judge
`
`Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE
`
`1
`
`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 5:20-cv-02995-LHK Document 96 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 1Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-2 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`AT&T CORP., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 20-CV-02995-LHK
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
`RELATE
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 89
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court DENIES AT&T’s motion to relate the instant case to AT&T Corp. v. VoIP-
`
`Pal.com, Inc., No. 21-CV-05078-JD (N.D. Cal. filed June 30, 2021).
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 25, 2021
`
`______________________________________
`
`LUCY H. KOH
`United States District Judge
`
`Case No. 20-CV-02995-LHK
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE
`
`1
`
`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 5:21-cv-05275-BLF Document 22 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 1Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-2 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 20-CV-03092-LHK
`
`ORDER DETERMINING THAT CASES
`ARE NOT RELATED
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 75
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, the Court concludes that the above-captioned case and
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, Case No. 18-CV-06054-LHK, are not related
`
`to Cellco Partnership v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-05275-BLF.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 26, 2021
`
`______________________________________
`
`LUCY H. KOH
`United States District Judge
`
`Case No. 20-CV-03092-LHK
`ORDER DETERMINING THAT CASES ARE NOT RELATED
`
`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`