Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03647/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03647-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CANON, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3640 CW

ORDER ON 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR CLARIFICATION 

(Docket No. 297)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FALCON COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3641 CW

(Docket No. 72)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3643 CW

(Docket No. 83)

Case 4:14-cv-03647-CW Document 78 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

2

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

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEWEGG INC. et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3645 CW

(Docket No. 69)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3646 CW

(Docket No. 79)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHUTTLE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3647 CW

(Docket No. 75)

The matter comes before the Court on Defendants' 

administrative motion for clarification of the Court's April 10, 

2015 order appointing Kwan Chan as Technical Advisor in the abovecaptioned cases. Docket No. 297.1 In the order, the Court stated 

that each party shall bear the cost of the Technical Advisor on a 

 1 Docket Numbers correspond to the docket for case number 

14-3640.

Case 4:14-cv-03647-CW Document 78 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

3

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

per capita basis. As Defendants point out, this contradicts the 

Court's earlier statement regarding the payment of the Technical 

Advisor, made at the November 19, 2014 case management conference, 

when the Court indicated that it would order the parties to pay 

the Technical Advisor on a 50/50 split, with Plaintiffs paying 

half and Defendants paying half. Moreover, as Defendants show, a 

50/50 split is equitable in these cases because the parties will 

ordinarily file two sets of briefs, one from Plaintiffs and one 

from Defendants. 

Defendants' motion is GRANTED and the April 10, 2015 order 

appointing Mr. Chan is amended as follows: Plaintiffs and 

Defendants shall split the cost of the Technical Advisor 50/50. 

Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each divide their half among them 

on a per capita basis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

04/29/2015

Case 4:14-cv-03647-CW Document 78 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 3