Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01516/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01516-3/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

Case No. 15-cv-01516 NC

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SILICONINDIA, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CIO STORY, LLC,

 Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01516 NC

ORDER REQUESTING 

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING IN 

SUPPORT OF STIPULATION FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; AND 

CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2015

Dkt. No. 63

The Court requests additional briefing in support of the Stipulation for Order of 

Permanent Injunction filed September 1, 2015. Dkt. No. 63. Responses to these requests 

are required by September 11, 2015. The case management conference and hearing 

scheduled for September 9 is continued to September 23, 2015, 1:00 p.m. in San Jose 

Courtroom 7, in light of the notice of conditional settlement.

• Is Paragraph (c) legal and enforceable? Under that provision, the parties agree that 

CIO STORY will “immediately withdraw from any solicitation” of a prospective 

customer if it learns that the prospective customer is already a customer of 

SILICONINDIA, INC. or of CIO Review. However, under the Sherman Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1, every “contract . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce . . . is 

Case 5:15-cv-01516-NC Document 64 Filed 09/02/15 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

Case No. 15-cv-01516 NC

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING 2

declared to be illegal.” Moreover, every person who shall make any contract or 

engage in any combination or conspiracy declared to be illegal shall be deemed 

guilty of a felony, punishable with substantial fines and imprisonment.

• Does defendant consent to the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, Dkt. No. 

43? If not, then what supports the proposed finding (no. 3) that plaintiff’s complaint 

states a claim or a series of claims? The Court dismissed the only operative claims at 

Dkt. No. 32.

• Describe the “public interest” (no. 6) served by the proposed permanent injunction.

• Identify the “Managing Member” who signed the Stipulation on behalf of CIO Story.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 2, 2015

Nathanael M. Cousins

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01516-NC Document 64 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2