Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

1

It is the Court’s understanding that the Clerk, as a courtesy, telephonically

contacted defendants to request a chambers copy of their opposition and supporting

documents. Inexplicably, defendants have failed to respond to such request by providing

chambers copies.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORTHOCLEAR, INC. and ORTHOCLEAR

HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-2948 MMC

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES

SHOULD BE RELATED

On July 12, 2006, plaintiff Align Technology, Inc. filed a motion, pursuant to Civil

Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, requesting the Court find the instant matter is related to Align

Technology, Inc. v. OrthoClear, Inc., et al., C-06-3828 SC. To date, defendants have not

filed, in the instant case, opposition or any other response to the motion. See Civil L.R. 3-

12(e) (providing response to motion to relate cases “must be filed in the earliest filed

case”). The docket of the higher-numbered case, however, reflects that on July 17, 2006,

defendants filed an opposition, a supporting declaration, and a proposed order therein. In

any event, defendants have failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of their

opposition and supporting documents, in violation of General Order 45 and the Court’s

Standing Orders. See General Order 45 § VI.G; see also Standing Orders For Civil Cases

Assigned to The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.1

Case 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 273 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 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

2

In the event defendants wish the Court to consider their opposition to plaintiff’s

motion seeking relation, defendants shall, no later than August 14, 2006, both electronically

file herein the above-referenced documents and deliver chambers copies thereof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 273 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 2