Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASER DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC;

NORWOOD OPERATING COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BJ CRYSTAL, INC, a California corporation;

CASHMAN PHOTO ENTERPRISES OF

NEVADA, a Nevada corporation; CRYSTAL

MAGIC, INC., a Florida Corporation; U.C.

LASER, INC., a New Jersey corporation;

VITRO LASER GROUP U.S.A., INC., a

Nevada corporation; JIMAC MARKETING

INC., a Canadian corporation; CONCORD

INDUSTRIES, INC., a Connecticut

corporation; C. STIEFELMAYER GMBH &

Co. KG, a German limited partnership;

CERION GMBH, a German limited liability

company; CRYSTAL CAPTURE INC., a

Texas corporation; CRYSTAL CAPTURE

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited

liability company; G.W. PARTNERS

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California

corporation; HIRSCH GIFT INC., a Texas

corporation; VISIONS IN CRYSTAL, INC., a

California corporation; VITRO LASER

GMBH, a German limited liability company,

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

 /

Lead Case No. C 03-1179 JSW

Consolidated with No. C 03-3905 JSW

ORDER DENYING PERKINS

COIE LLP’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR

JIMAC MARKETING, INC.

On September 1, 2006 this Court granted the motion filed by Perkins Coie LLP to

withdraw as counsel for Jimac Marketing, Inc. on the record. However, upon further 

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 393 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

consideration, the Court HEREBY VACATES the order granting this motion. Perkins Coie

represented that its client, Jimac Marketing, Inc., was provided notice of the motion by August

1, 2006, less than thirty-five days before the hearing. It thus appears that Jimac Marketing did

not have sufficient notice of the pending motion to withdraw. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

the motion to withdraw without prejudice. If Perkins Coie elects to re-notice the motion, it

should provide at least thirty-five days notice to Jimac Marketing and file proof of such service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 393 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2