Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

LASER DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC;

NORWOOD OPERATING COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BJ CRYSTAL, INC, a California corporation;

CASHMAN PHOTO ENTERPRISES OF

NEVADA, a Nevada corporation; CRYSTAL

MAGIC, INC., a Florida Corporation; U.C.

LASER, INC., a New Jersey corporation;

VITRO LASER GROUP U.S.A., INC., a

Nevada corporation; JIMAC MARKETING

INC., a Canadian corporation; CONCORD

INDUSTRIES, INC., a Connecticut

corporation; C. STIEFELMAYER GMBH &

Co. KG, a German limited partnership;

CERION GMBH, a German limited liability

company; CRYSTAL CAPTURE INC., a

Texas corporation; CRYSTAL CAPTURE

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited

liability company; G.W. PARTNERS

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California

corporation; HIRSCH GIFT INC., a Texas

corporation; VISIONS IN CRYSTAL, INC., a

California corporation; VITRO LASER

GMBH, a German limited liability company,

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

 /

Lead Case No. C 03-1179 JSW

Consolidated with No. C 03-3905 JSW

ORDER RE MOTION TO

STRIKE, MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO SERVE, AND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On December 20, 2006 the Court issued an order in which it construed Defendants’

motion for leave to serve an expert rebuttal report after the deadline as an opposition to 

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 463 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the declarations of Eric Van Stryland and Steven M. Rhodes. The

Court set a deadline of January 5, 2007 for Plaintiff to file a reply brief in support of its motion

to strike, and to respond to Defendants’ evidence and argument regarding the expert rebuttal

report. Defendants contend that their motion for leave and Plaintiff’s motion to strike address

separate issues and seek leave to have both motions briefed and heard in conjunction with

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

The Court HEREBY VACATES its previous order construing Defendants’ motion for

leave as an opposition to the pending motion to strike and setting a deadline of January 5, 2007

for Plaintiff to respond and/or file a reply brief. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the

hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED to March 2, 2007 at 9:00

a.m. Defendants may file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, and Plaintiff may file an

opposition to Defendants’ motion for leave, by no later than January 17, 2007. Defendants and

Plaintiff may file their respective replies, if any, by no later than January 24, 2007. The Court

will hear these motions in conjunction with Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on March

2, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 463 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2