Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02305/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02305-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

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

TOP VICTORY ELECTRONICS (TAIWAN) CO.

LTD,. a Taiwanese limited liability company;

ENVISION PERIPHERALS, INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HITACHI, LTD., a Japanese corporation;

ELONEX UK PLC, a UK corporation,

Defendants. /

AND COUNTERCLAIM.

 /

No. C 03-05792 WHA

ORDER FINDING CASES 

NOT RELATED

A notice of related cases was filed on June 6, 2005, concerning the following actions: 

C 03-05792 WHA Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd. et al. v. Hitachi Ltd. et al.

C 05-02302 BZ Hitachi, Ltd. v. Tatung Co. et al.

C 05-02305 PVT Hitachi, Ltd. v. Proview Int’l Holdings, Inc. et al.

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides that actions are related when:

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction

or event; and

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of

labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before

different Judges.

The Court has evaluated the files and finds that the more recently-filed actions are not

related to the earliest-filed case. While the patents asserted are substantially the same, the

accused infringers (and their products) are not. Nor will there be any duplication of labor or

Case 3:05-cv-02305-CRB Document 4 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

risk of conflicting results because the parties to the earliest-filed action settled before the claim

construction hearing was held; thus, no substantive orders were ever issued by the undersigned. 

These actions are now referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related

case determination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02305-CRB Document 4 Filed 06/17/05 Page 2 of 2