Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05962/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05962-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NETLIST, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

DIABLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 13-cv-5962 YGR 

INDICATIVE RULING PURSUANT TO RULE 

62.1(A)(3) THAT MOTION TO DISSOLVE 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WOULD RAISE A

SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE 

 Defendant Diablo Technologies, Inc. (“Diablo”) seeks an indicative ruling from this Court 

under Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure following entry of the jury’s verdict in its 

favor on Plaintiff Netlist Inc.’s claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and 

correction of inventorship. In a brief filed immediately after entry of the verdict (Dkt. No. 418), 

Diablo states that it intends to file a motion to dissolve this Court’s January 12, 2015 preliminary 

injunction order. 

 Because the preliminary injunction order is currently on appeal before the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit, this Court is divested of jurisdiction to dissolve the preliminary injunction. 

However, Rule 62.1 permits a court to issue an “indicative ruling” stating “either that it would grant 

the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial 

issue” when the court is otherwise divested of jurisdiction to an appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 (a)(3). 

 Here, the preliminary injunction was granted based upon the Court’s finding, on the record 

before it at that time, that Netlist had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of 

contract claims, as well as irreparable harm. After a full presentation of evidence at trial, the jury has 

now rendered a verdict in favor of Diablo on those breach of contract claims, as well as Netlist’s 

trade secret claims. In light of the verdict, the evidence, and the arguments, the Court anticipates that 

Diablo’s motion to dissolve will “raise a substantial issue,” as contemplated by Rule 62.1(a)(3). 

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 421 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

 Based upon the foregoing, and with the parties’ agreement to expedite the process for an 

indicative ruling and notification to the Court of Appeals, the Court issues this indicative ruling that 

Diablo’s anticipated motion raises a substantial issue. 

 Further, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule: 

 Diablo shall file its motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction no later than Monday, 

March 30, 2015. Netlist shall file its opposition to the motion no later than Friday, April 3, 2015. 

Diablo may file a reply no later than Tuesday, April 7, 2015. 

 The Court tentatively sets the matter for hearing on April 10, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. 

Understanding that remand is a matter within the Court of Appeals’ discretion pursuant to Rule 12.1 

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should the Court of Appeals remand the preliminary 

injunction appeal to this Court by that time, the hearing on the motion will proceed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 25, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 421 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 2