Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas A. Simonian v. Monster Cable Products

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


July 14, 2011

THOMAS A. SIMONIAN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC.,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY CASE

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

On July 7, 2011, the parties submitted a stipulation in which they requested that the Court stay this action pending a final determination regarding the enactment of the America Invents Act 18 of 2011. The parties agree that, if enacted, the America Invents Act would deprive Plaintiff of 19 standing to bring the instant false patent marking action. The parties represent that the Senate 20 passed a version of the Act on March 8, 2011, and the House passed a different version of the Act 21 on June 23, 2011. However, the parties do not state that Congress is scheduled to vote on a 22 reconciled bill in the near future, nor do they provide any other indication that the status of the Act 23 will be resolved within a short, definite timeframe. It thus appears that the status of the Act might 24 not be resolved until the end of 2012, when the current congressional session ends. Moreover, 25 there is a possibility that the Act may never be enacted into law or that the enacted version of the Act may not deprive Plaintiff of standing. The Court is not inclined to grant a stay of such 27 indefinite and potentially lengthy duration and uncertain outcome. Accordingly, the parties' 28 request for a stay is DENIED. If the parties wish to conserve resources pending congressional action, they may stipulate to dismiss the case without prejudice, with a tolling agreement, if 2 warranted, to preserve Plaintiff's claims in the event that the bill does not become law.

Finally, given the timing of the parties' stipulated request, the Court will modify the schedule for briefing Defendant's motion to dismiss, as follows: (1) Plaintiff's response is due July 21, 2011; (2) Defendant's reply is due July 28, 2011; (3) The motion will be heard on September 22, 2011, as scheduled. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

20110714

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.