Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03036/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03036-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Genrad, Inc.
Defendant
Mission Valley Ford Truck Sales, Inc.
Plaintiff
Teradyne, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MISSION VALLEY FORD TRUCK SALES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TERADYNE, INC. and GENRAD, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-03036 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 6, 2006:

The Court tentatively GRANTS the request by Plaintiff Mission Valley Ford Truck

Sales, Inc. for a continuance pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) (“Rule 56(f)”) to

oppose the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Teradyne, Inc. and GenRad, Inc.

The Court tentatively RESERVES ruling on the alternative motion by Defendants to transfer

this case to the Eastern District of Michigan. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of

points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in

those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument

Case 3:05-cv-03036-JSW Document 42 Filed 01/04/06 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

or additional briefing. See Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at

oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Plaintiff seeks a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) to conduct discovery in opposition

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but does not specify the length of the

continuance it seeks. How much time does Plaintiff need to conduct discovery to oppose

Defendants’ motion?

(2) Defendants argue that this action could have been brought in the Eastern District of

Michigan because that court would have personal jurisdiction over Teryadyne

Diagnostic Solutions, Inc. However, Teryadyne Diagnostic Solutions, Inc. is not a 

defendant in this suit. Would a Michigan court have personal jurisdiction over

Teradyne, Inc. and GenRad, Inc. for the claims of patent infringement in this matter? If

this suit could have been brought against Teradyne, Inc. and GenRad, Inc. in the Eastern

District of Michigan, Defendants should be prepared to submit evidence demonstrating

facts sufficient to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over these entities. 

(3) Defendants address where sales activities for the allegedly infringing products occurred,

but do not specifically state where the allegedly infringing products were designed

and/or manufactured. Where were the allegedly infringing products designed and/or

manufactured? Defendants should be prepared to submit evidence demonstrating where

were the allegedly infringing products designed and/or manufactured.

(4) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03036-JSW Document 42 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2