Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01886/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01886-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTEL CORPORATION AND DELL, INC., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-1886 MJJ

ORDER

On July 8, 2005, the Court denied Defendant Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organisation’s (“Defendant” or “CSIRO”) Rule 12(b)(4) and Rule 12(b)(5) motion to

dismiss. In that July 8, 2005, Order, the Court instructed Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff’s

complaint by August 1, 2005. On August 1, 2005, Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss, this

time on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2). Plaintiff has since filed a motion to compel Defendant to file an

answer to Plaintiff’s complaint by August 1, 2005. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s filing of a

successive motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has also asked the Court to shorten time on its motion to

compel. 

The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time. Additionally, the Court finds

that Plaintiff’s procedural objections to Defendant’s second motion to dismiss should be addressed

in 
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

2

its opposition to the motion rather than in a separate motion to compel. However, because Plaintiff

must address both its procedural objections to Defendant’s motion and its substantive opposition to

the motion in the same brief, Plaintiff’s responsive brief may be five pages longer than is normally

permitted by the Civil Local Rules. Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition shall be no longer than 30 pages in

length. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be no longer than 18 pages in length.

This Order terminates docket entry nos. 38 and 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August_10__, 2005 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE