Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05792/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05792-1/pdf.json

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

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 05-02301 CRB Hitachi, Ltd. v. Amtran Tech. Co., Ltd.

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 action is 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

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

Case 3:03-cv-05792-WHA Document 85 Filed 06/22/05 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

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

By previous order dated June 17, 2005, the Court also declined to relate the following actions,

which have since been reassigned because one or more parties declined to proceed before a

magistrate judge:

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

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

These actions are now referred to Judge Charles Breyer for a related case determination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05792-WHA Document 85 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2