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.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, and Foundry v. A10 Networks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


July 27, 2011

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND FOUNDRY
NETWORKS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
A10 NETWORKS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, LEE CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL,
RAJKUMAR JALAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, RON SZETO, AN INDIVIDUAL, LIANG HAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, STEVEN HWANG, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DAVID CHEUNG, AN INDIVIDUAL,
DEFENDANTS.

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

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On July 26, 2011, Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. (Brocade) filed a motion for a 21 temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. Brocade seeks an order 22 preventing A10 Networks, Inc. (A10) from signing sales contracts for A10's AX Series application 23 delivery controller (AX controller) with three potential clients, and from offering the AX controller 24 for sale to any customer. In addition, Brocade asks that A10 be ordered to notify its customers that 25 its AX Series products may be subject to recall if Brocade is successful in this suit. See Dkt. No. 26 124. Brocade's motion is based on its allegation that it has discovered proof that A10 copied Brocade's copyright-protected source code, and utilized Brocade's trade secrets, in A10's AX 28 controllers.

Although Brocade appears to seek entry of a TRO before A10 can respond to or oppose the motion, the Court cannot grant the requested relief without providing A10 an opportunity to 3 respond. As noted by Brocade in its moving papers, loss of customers, goodwill, and bargaining 4 power can constitute irreparable harm. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001). If the Court erroneously concludes that A10 has infringed Brocade's 6 copyrights or used its trademarks, based only on Brocade's side of the story, and orders the 7 measures Brocade seeks, A10 will suffer the same irreparable harm that Brocade complains of 8 here. 9

Accordingly, the Court sets the following expedited briefing schedule:

A10 shall file an opposition to Brocade's motion for TRO by Tuesday, August 2, 2011.

Brocade shall file a reply by Thursday, August 4, 2011. No hearing will be scheduled on this 12 matter at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110727

© 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.