Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948-8/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

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 GRANTING DEFENDANT

ORTHOCLEAR HOLDINGS, INC.’S

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO

WITHDRAW MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is defendant OrthoClear Holdings, Inc.’s (“Holdings”) administrative

request to withdraw its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff Align

Technology, Inc. (“Align”) has filed a response thereto. Having read and considered the

papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.

Given that Holdings now seeks to consent to the jurisdiction of the Court, Holdings’s

administrative motion is hereby GRANTED, and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction, currently scheduled for hearing on May 12, 2006, is VACATED. Holdings is

hereby ORDERED to file an answer to the complaint no later than five court days from the

date of this order.

Align’s request that withdrawal of the motion be contingent on the Court’s extending

the fact discovery cut-off is DENIED without prejudice. The issue of whether good cause to

extend the discovery cut-off exists will be addressed in the context of Align’s subsequentlyCase 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 75 Filed 03/16/06 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

filed administrative motion to extend the discovery cut-off.

Align’s request that withdrawal of the motion be contingent on the Court’s requiring

Holdings to pay Align its expenses incurred in investigating and opposing the motion is

DENIED without prejudice to Align’s filing a motion for sanctions. See Civil L.R. 7-8

(providing motion for sanctions, regardless of source of authority invoked, must be

separately filed and noticed for hearing).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 75 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2