Rovi Corporation et al v. Roku, Inc.
| Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc. and United Video Properties, Inc. |
| Roku, Inc. |
| 4:2012cv02185 |
| May 1, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Donna M. Ryu |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
36
ORDER granting 35 Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/7/2015. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2015)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER AS MODIFIED GRANTING STAY re 11 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STAYING ACTION filed by Roku, Inc. Due to what may be a lengthy stay, the Clerk shall administratively close this action. The parties shall submit a joint status report apprising the court of any developments which may affect the stay no later than January 14, 2013, and shall submit a similar report every (4) months thereafter. This Order shall not prevent either party from seeking to reopen this case and lif t the stay to set a Case Management Conference or request other relief should the circumstances warrant. Pursuant to Stipulation, it is so ordered as modified. Motions terminated: 11 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STAYING ACTION filed by Roku, Inc. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/18/2102. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2012)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
