Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OKI AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

___________________________________/

No. C 04-03171 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for permission to submit

defendant’s mediation statement to a Japanese court. By letter dated January 18, 2006,

plaintiffs advised defendant that plaintiffs’ motion to submit the mediation statement is moot. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is DISMISSED. The Court did not review the mediation

statement that plaintiffs filed with the Court.

The Court notes that it only became aware of the mootness of plaintiffs’ motion

because the Court happened to review defendant’s motion to amend the protective order. 

Plaintiffs are under an obligation to notify the Court of the mootness of one of their motions

immediately upon plaintiffs’ determination that the motion is moot; otherwise, the Court’s

scarce resources may be wasted. That plaintiffs believe defendant’s motion to amend may

also be moot is irrelevant. As plaintiffs take the position (and this Court agrees) that the

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 163 Filed 01/23/06 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

G:\CRBALL\2004\3171\orderremediation.wpd 2

motion they filed is moot, they should have immediately so notified the Court regardless of

whether defendant agrees that its own motion is also moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 163 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2