Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIATEK, INC., et al.,

Defendant /

No. C 05-3148 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING MATSUSHITA AND

PANASONIC TO LODGE CHAMBERS

COPIES IN COMPLIANCE WITH

GENERAL ORDER 45 AND THE

COURT’S STANDING ORDERS

On January 27, 2006, plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Matsushita Electric Industrial

Co., Ltd. (“Matsushita”) and counterclaim defendant Panasonic Corporation of North

America (“Panasonic”) electronically filed their Reply in Support of Matsushita and

Panasonic’s Motion to Sever Mediatek’s Patent Infringement Counterclaim and Transfer It

to the District of Delaware. Matsushita and Panasonic have violated General Order 45 and

the Court’s Standing Orders, however, by failing to deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later

than noon on the business day following the day that the papers are filed electronically, one

paper copy of each document that is filed electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and .

. . clearly marked with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” 

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

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

Matsushita and Panasonic are hereby ORDERED to comply with General Order 45

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 66 Filed 02/01/06 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

and the Court’s Standing Orders by immediately submitting a chambers copy of the abovereferenced document. Matsushita and Panasonic are hereby advised that if they fail in the

future to comply with the Court’s Standing Order to provide chambers copies of

electronically-filed documents, the Court may impose sanctions, including, but not limited

to, striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a chambers copy has

not been timely provided to the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 66 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2