Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Electronics For Imaging Inc et al

Plaintiff: Digitech Image Technologies LLC
Defendant: Xerox Corporation, Konica Minolta Holdings Inc, Konica Minolta Holdings USA Inc, Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc and Electronics For Imaging Inc
Case Number: 8:2012cv01324
Filed: August 16, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Robert N. Block
Presiding Judge: James V. Selna
Nature of Suit: Patent

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 6, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 93 JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II :In light of the Courts Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment (Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx) (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2013) 88 and the parties representations in their August 5, 2013 Joint Status Report (Id. 90 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Digitech Image Technologies, LLC shall take nothing; 2. Judgment for each of the Defendants in this and the related cases. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
July 31, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 89 ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: In view of the Courts July 31, 2013 Order Granting Summary Judgment, the Court hereby DENIES the following pending motions: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Infringement Contentions is DEN IED AS MOOT (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx), 68 ; Digitech Image Technologies LLCs Ex Parte Application is DENIED ASMOOT (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx), 86 ; Ricoh Co., Ltd. and Ricoh Americans Corp.s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1689-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 35); Xerox Corp.s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1693-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 27);Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.s Motion for Leave to FileThird Party Complaint is DENIED (No. 8:12-cv-1694-ODW(MRWx), ECF No. 35).Further, in an abundance of caution, the Court hereby ORDERS all parties to file a joint status report by August 7, 2013. This report should be filed only in the lead case (No. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW(MRWx)), and must briefly state reasons why, in light of the Courts findings that claims 16, 9, 1015, and 2631 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Court should not enter final judgment in favor of Defendants. For instance, though the Court believes this is not the case, it is conceivable that Digitech has asserted claims 78, 1625, or 3233 against one or more Defendants. There may also be other reasons unknown to the Court why it should not enter final judgment. (lc). Modified on 7/31/2013. (lc).
July 16, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims for relief against Best Buy and Best Buys counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same. Case Terminated. Made JS-6., (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (cch)
May 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 48 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc)
January 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 35 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 34 by Judge Otis D Wright, II (lc)
December 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: The scheduling conference in this matter, currently for January 14, 2012, is hereby CONTINUED to April 1, 2013. The parties joint Rule 26(f) conference is therefore due no later than March 18, 2013. (lc). Modified on 12/28/2012 (lc).

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Electronics For Imaging Inc et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Xerox Corporation
Represented By: Anthony Ross Delling
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Konica Minolta Holdings Inc
Represented By: Christopher P Broderick
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Konica Minolta Holdings USA Inc
Represented By: Christopher P Broderick
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc
Represented By: Christopher P Broderick
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Electronics For Imaging Inc
Represented By: Frank P Cote
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Digitech Image Technologies LLC
Represented By: John J Edmonds
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?