e.Digital
Flash-R™ patent portfolio e.Digital's Flash-R™ patent portfolio contains fundamental technology essential to the utilization of flash memory in today's large and growing portable electronic products market.
in response to
emma's message
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ShenZhen Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co.,
Ltd. (dba Oco Camera); Ivideon LLC (dba Oco
Camera); Global Innovations; and, New Sight
Devices Corp.
Defendants.
Case No. 15-cv-00691-WHO
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF
INABILITY TO FILE CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
PRIOR TO THE JUNE 24, 2015 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
REQUEST THAT THE HEARING BE
CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS
TO ALL PARTIES IN THIS ACTION, THEIR ATTORNEYS, AND TO THE
HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-TITLED COURT:
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”) hereby respectfully submits this NOTICE as to why it has, to date, been unable to file a case management statement with the Court to date. Plaintiff further requests that the case management conference set for June 24, 2015 be continued for two weeks.
I. INTRODUCTION
On or about February 13, 2015, e.Digital filed the case e.Digital Corporation v. ShenZhe Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd. (dba Oco Camera), Case Number 4:15-cv-00691-WHO (“the Oco Case”) in the Northern District. (Dkt #1 in the Oco Case). When it was filed with the Court, Plaintiff provided notice that the Dropcam Case was related to the Oco Case in the Civil Case Coversheet. (Dkt#1-6 in the Oco Case). e.Digital asserts the following five patents against the Defendants in the Oco Case
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ShenZhen Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co.,
Ltd. (dba Oco Camera); Ivideon LLC (dba Oco
Camera); Global Innovations; and, New Sight
Devices Corp.
Defendants.
Case No. 15-cv-00691-WHO
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF
INABILITY TO FILE CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
PRIOR TO THE JUNE 24, 2015 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
REQUEST THAT THE HEARING BE
CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS
TO ALL PARTIES IN THIS ACTION, THEIR ATTORNEYS, AND TO THE
HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-TITLED COURT:
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”) hereby respectfully submits this NOTICE as to why it has, to date, been unable to file a case management statement with the Court to date. Plaintiff further requests that the case management conference set for June 24, 2015 be continued for two weeks.
I. INTRODUCTION
On or about February 13, 2015, e.Digital filed the case e.Digital Corporation v. ShenZhe Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd. (dba Oco Camera), Case Number 4:15-cv-00691-WHO (“the Oco Case”) in the Northern District. (Dkt #1 in the Oco Case). When it was filed with the Court, Plaintiff provided notice that the Dropcam Case was related to the Oco Case in the Civil Case Coversheet. (Dkt#1-6 in the Oco Case). e.Digital asserts the following five patents against the Defendants in the Oco Case
(collectively “the Asserted Patents”):
(1) United States Patent No. 8,306,514, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’514 patent”);
(2) United States Patent No. 8,311,522, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’522 patent”);
(3) United States Patent No. 8,311,523, entitled “System andMethod for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’523 patent”);
(4) United States Patent No. 8,311,524, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’524 patent”); and/or, (5) United States Patent No. 8,315,619, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’619 patent”). The accused products in the Oco Case include but are not limited to the Defendants’ Oco wireless camera systems, which include, without limitation, Defendants’ subscription Ivideon Recording Services and server for remote monitoring and communication. (See, Oco Case Dkt
None of the Defendants in the Oco Case have appeared or otherwise responded to the Complaint as of the date of the execution of this pleading. Currently, there is a Case Management Conference set in the Oco Case for June 24, 2015 at 2:00 P.M. (Oco Case,Dkt #23).
II. PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MEET AND CONFER WITH
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER TO DATE AS TO THE
MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE DISCUSSED AND SET FORTH IN A CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
(1) United States Patent No. 8,306,514, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’514 patent”);
(2) United States Patent No. 8,311,522, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’522 patent”);
(3) United States Patent No. 8,311,523, entitled “System andMethod for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’523 patent”);
(4) United States Patent No. 8,311,524, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’524 patent”); and/or, (5) United States Patent No. 8,315,619, entitled “System and Method for Managing Mobile Communications” (“the ’619 patent”). The accused products in the Oco Case include but are not limited to the Defendants’ Oco wireless camera systems, which include, without limitation, Defendants’ subscription Ivideon Recording Services and server for remote monitoring and communication. (See, Oco Case Dkt
None of the Defendants in the Oco Case have appeared or otherwise responded to the Complaint as of the date of the execution of this pleading. Currently, there is a Case Management Conference set in the Oco Case for June 24, 2015 at 2:00 P.M. (Oco Case,Dkt #23).
II. PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MEET AND CONFER WITH
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER TO DATE AS TO THE
MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE DISCUSSED AND SET FORTH IN A CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Plaintiff and its counsel have engaged in ongoing settlement discussions with an apparent agent of the Defendants in this matter who is not their counsel, but an apparent corporate
representative of the Defendants. Plaintiff is unaware and Defendants have not disclosed to Plaintiff who their counsel is in this matter. The parties have been diligently trying to resolve this
case, but no resolution has been reached to date. Because the parties may be and/or are very close to resolving this case in its entirety, Plaintiff has not yet sought the entry of default in this matter against the Defendants and has provided the Defendants an extension of time to respond to the Complaint.
Part of the delay in finally resolving this matter is due to the fact that some or all of the principles for the Defendants may be and/or are located in Russia and thereby certain communications to include a proposedsettlement agreement must be translated from English into Russian.
As of the date of the execution of this pleading, because Defendants have not yet appeared in the case and the identity of their respective counsel is not yet known, Plaintiff and its
counsel have been unable to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel with respect to the matters required to be discussed and set forth in the Case Management Statement. Plaintiff has provided notice of the Case Management Conference as well as the requirements for filing a Case Management Statement with the Court to Defendants to no avail. Plaintiff has also
requested multiple times that Defendants retain counsel in this matter and/or make an appearance in this matter via counsel to no avail.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to file a Case Management Statement with the Court as it has been unable to meet and confer with the Defendants and/or their counsel as to the matters
required by the Court.
Plaintiff has indicated to the Defendants that should a final agreement not be reached forthwith, then Plaintiff will seek the entry of default as to one or all of the Defendants. Plaintiff intends to seek the entry of default as to the Defendants by June 22, 2015 if a final agreement has
not been reached.
III. CONCLUSION
representative of the Defendants. Plaintiff is unaware and Defendants have not disclosed to Plaintiff who their counsel is in this matter. The parties have been diligently trying to resolve this
case, but no resolution has been reached to date. Because the parties may be and/or are very close to resolving this case in its entirety, Plaintiff has not yet sought the entry of default in this matter against the Defendants and has provided the Defendants an extension of time to respond to the Complaint.
Part of the delay in finally resolving this matter is due to the fact that some or all of the principles for the Defendants may be and/or are located in Russia and thereby certain communications to include a proposedsettlement agreement must be translated from English into Russian.
As of the date of the execution of this pleading, because Defendants have not yet appeared in the case and the identity of their respective counsel is not yet known, Plaintiff and its
counsel have been unable to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel with respect to the matters required to be discussed and set forth in the Case Management Statement. Plaintiff has provided notice of the Case Management Conference as well as the requirements for filing a Case Management Statement with the Court to Defendants to no avail. Plaintiff has also
requested multiple times that Defendants retain counsel in this matter and/or make an appearance in this matter via counsel to no avail.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to file a Case Management Statement with the Court as it has been unable to meet and confer with the Defendants and/or their counsel as to the matters
required by the Court.
Plaintiff has indicated to the Defendants that should a final agreement not be reached forthwith, then Plaintiff will seek the entry of default as to one or all of the Defendants. Plaintiff intends to seek the entry of default as to the Defendants by June 22, 2015 if a final agreement has
not been reached.
III. CONCLUSION
With the above in mind, Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the Case Management
Conference for two weeks if possible given the unique circumstances stated above.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 11, 2015
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk
Pamela C. Chalk
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
Conference for two weeks if possible given the unique circumstances stated above.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 11, 2015
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk
Pamela C. Chalk
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
Please
login
to post a reply
sman998
City
ORANGE , CALIFORNIA
Rank
President
Activity Points
93979
Rating
Your Rating
Date Joined
12/02/2006
e.Digital
Symbol
EDIG
Exchange
OTCBB
Shares
293,680,000 approx 2016
Industry
Technology & Medical
Website