Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc Featured Case
Plaintiff: Digitech Image Technologies LLC
Defendant: Apple Inc
Case Number: 8:2012cv02125
Filed: December 7, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Michael R. Wilner
Presiding Judge: Otis D Wright
Nature of Suit: Patent
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 18, 2013. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 18, 2013 Filing 21 REPORT ON THE DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or Trademark. (Closing) (Attachments: # 1 order of dismissal) (lc)
April 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, re Stipulation 19 action is dismissed with prejudice; parties bear own attorney fees, costs and expenses. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)
April 17, 2013 Filing 19 STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Parties have settled their respective claims for relief asserted in this cause filed by plaintiff Digitech Image Technologies LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Edmonds, John)
April 1, 2013 Filing 18 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Digitech Cases are, until further order, coordinated for case-management purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The parties are hereby ORDERED to file a joint brief addressing their respective positions to the protective order and electronically-stored information orders to be issued in this case. The joint brief shall not exceed 20 pages in length (excluding exhibits) and shall be filed no later than April 15, 2013. In addition, the stipulated protective order filed in the Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., No.8:12-cv-01324, ECF No.35(C.D.Cal filed Jan. 1, 2013), is hereby VACATED. That order will be replaced with a forthcoming protective order applicable in all of these cases. The low-number case, Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., No8:12-cv-01324-ODW-MRW (C.D.Cal filed Aug. 16, 2012), will serve as the master case file. All orders, pleadings, motions, and other documents will, when filed and docketed in the master case file, be deemed filed and docketed in each individual related case to the extent applicable. Parties shall enter their appearances in the individual cases, and the Clerk is directed to add all parties and attorneys from the individual cases to the master case file such that all counsel appearing in the individual cases will receive notifications for the master case file as well consolidated cases. The Cases Against the Retailer Defendants are hereby Stayed. The Court hereby GRANTS the following retailer Defendants' motions to stay, Digitech Image Tech LLC v. Buy.com, No.8:12-cv-01668, ECF.No.13, Digitech Image Tech.LLC v. BestBuyCo., No.8:12-cv-1669, ECF No.19, Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. B&HFoto & Elec.Corp., No.8:12-cv-1671, ECFNo.18, Digitech Image Tech LLC v. Target Corp., No.8:12-cv-1683, ECF No.16, Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Micro Elec.Inc., No. 8:12-cv-1686, ECF No.16, Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Overstock.com, No.8:12-cv-1687, ECF No.16, Digitech Image Tech.LLC v. Newegg Inc., No.8:12-cv-1688, ECF No.23, Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. CDW LLC, No.8:12-cv-1695, ECF No.22. In addition, the retailer Defendants listed above are hereby ORDERED to communicate with Christopher Broderick as soon as practicable, but in no event later than April 5, 2013, to inform him whether each retailer will agree to be bound to this Court's Markman and invalidity rulings once the stay has been lifted in exchange for a stay of this entire litigation pending final resolution of every manufacturer action. Mr. Broderick shall then email the Court's courtroom deputy clerk, Sheila English Defendants. Defendant Sakar's Motion to Transfer Venue in Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Sakar International Inc., No.8:12-cv-1673, ECF No. 13 (C.D.Cal. filed December 3, 2012) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Defendants Sakar and Leica Camera Inc. may renew their motions to transfer after the Court issues a Markman order in this matter. Counter-Defendant Acacia Research Corporation's Motion to Dismi9ss filed in Digitech Image Tech, LLC v. Newegg Inc., No.8:12-cv-1688, ECF No. 30, is hereby taken under submission. An order will issue. In addition, the Apri9l 8, 2013 hearing on Defendant Leaf Imaging Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss filed in Digitech Image LLC v. Mamiya Digital Imagings Co., No. 8:12-cv-1688, ECF No.26, is hereby VACATED and no appearances are necessary. The Motion is taken under submission: an order will issue. Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately serve a copy of this order on all Defendants who have not yet filed appearances in the cases (and who therefore have not received a copy through the CM/ECF system). Court Reporter: Katie Thibodeaux. (bp)
March 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 17 PATENT STANDING ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, (lc)
March 18, 2013 Filing 16 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 7 days, filed by Plaintiff Digitech Image Technologies LLC.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Edmonds, John)
March 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 15 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSOLIDATE DISCOVERY AND ORDER THEREON (see document for specifics) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, (lc) Modified on 3/4/2013 (lc).
February 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER that the Scheduling Conference is set for 4/1/13 1:30 PM ; compliance with FRCP 16, and 26(f) and filing of joint report; Counsel for plaintiff shall immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action by Judge Otis D Wright, II (lc)
February 4, 2013 Filing 13 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Apple Inc identifying Apple Inc. as Corporate Parent. (Cote, Frank)
February 4, 2013 Filing 12 ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant Apple Inc.(Cote, Frank)
January 3, 2013 Filing 11 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Frank P Cote counsel for Defendant Apple Inc. Adding Frank P. Cote as attorney as counsel of record for Apple Inc. for the reason indicated in the G-06 Notice. Filed by defendant Apple Inc. (Cote, Frank)
January 3, 2013 Filing 10 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney William C Rooklidge counsel for Defendant Apple Inc. Adding William C. Rooklidge as attorney as counsel of record for Apple Inc. for the reason indicated in the G-06 Notice. Filed by defendant Apple Inc. (Rooklidge, William)
December 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 9 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. Counsel are encouraged to review the Central Districts website for additional information. ( SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC FILING REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION). (lc)
December 20, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08-05 -Related Case- filed. Related Case No: SACV12-01153 ODW (MRWx). Case transferred from Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman and Judge Josephine Staton Tucker to Judge Otis D Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge SACV12-02125 ODW (MRWx). Signed by Judge Otis D Wright, II. (rrp)
December 19, 2012 Filing 7 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties (Local Rule 7.1-1) filed by Defendant Apple Inc (Finkelstein, Mark)
December 19, 2012 Filing 6 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Apple Inc answer now due 2/4/2013, filed by Defendant Apple Inc.(Finkelstein, Mark)
December 13, 2012 Filing 5 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or a Trademark (Initial Notification) filed by Digitech Image Technologies LLC. (Edmonds, John)
December 7, 2012 Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed.(lwag)
December 7, 2012 Filing 3 NOTICE TO COUNSEL RE: Copyright, Patent and Trademark Reporting Requirements. Counsel shall file the appropriate AO-120 and/or AO-121 form with the Clerk within 10 days. (lwag)
December 7, 2012 Filing 2 CERTIFICATION and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Digitech Image Technologies LLC. (lwag) (lwag).
December 7, 2012 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Defendant Apple Inc. Case assigned to Judge Josephine Staton Tucker for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman.(Filing fee $350 Paid). Jury Demanded. Filed by Plaintiff Digitech Image Technologies LLC.(lwag) (lwag).
December 7, 2012 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 as to Defendant Apple Inc. (lwag)

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. Apple Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Apple Inc
Represented By: Frank P Cote
Represented By: Mark A Finkelstein
Represented By: William C Rooklidge
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?