`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 16-290-MN-SRF
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`)
`)
`
`ffROf'OSEffl ORDER
`
`On August 21, 2018, the Court conducted a teleconference to discuss the scheduling of,
`
`the procedures involved, and the types of alternative dispute resolutions available, including
`
`mediation. During the teleconference, the parties informed the Court of another patent
`
`infringement action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California (C.A. No. 5:17-cv-00778-BLF, the "California action") where the parties have begun
`
`the process of selecting a mediator and mediation date pursuant to that Court's mandatory ADR
`
`procedures. The parties expressed their shared belief that a resolution of that dispute (if one is
`
`reached at the upcoming mediation) would also resolve the dispute pending in this Court. To
`
`facilitate a global resolution of the parties' disputes, the Court will hold in abeyance the
`
`mediation in this action until further notice.
`
`Beginning on October 21, 2018, and continuing every two months thereafter until the
`
`mediation in the California case concludes, the parties shall send a joint status report email to the
`
`Court apprising the Court of the progress of the mediation in the California action. The parties
`
`shall promptly inform the Court of any significant events in the California mediation, such as its
`
`outcome. If the mediation concludes unsuccessfully, the parties shall also provide their proposals
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 79 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1721
`
`concerning the timing of when they believe mediation would be most beneficial/productive in
`
`this case.
`
`SO ORDERED this the ~
`
`5908491/43303
`
`day of August, 2018.
`
`~~ United States Magistrate Judge
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
