Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-04925/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-04925-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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 1

Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Non-Opposition on January 3, 2005.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUMITOMO MITSUBISHI SILICON

CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-2133 SBA

(Related to Case No. C 01-4925)

ORDER

[Docket No. 55]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

and Counterclaim [Docket No. 55]. Defendant's Motion is unopposed.1 Having read and considered

the papers submitted to the Court, the Court considers this matter appropriate for resolution without a

hearing. 

For good cause showing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and

Counterclaim [Docket No. 55] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant shall file and serve its Amended Answer and

Counterclaim no later than three (3) days following the date of this Order. The parties are hereby

reminded that they are obligated to meet and confer with each other prior to filing any motions with the

Court. The underlying rationale for this obligation is the elimination of the need for the Court to expend

limited judicial resources on matters that could otherwise be resolved by the parties through stipulation.

Further, if a party determines that it no longer opposes a motion that is pending before the Court, the

Court expects the party to promptly advise the Court by filing a statement of non-opposition on or

Case 4:01-cv-04925-SBA Document 609 Filed 01/04/06 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

before the date that the opposition brief is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 1/3/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-04925-SBA Document 609 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2