Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Silego Technology, Inc.
| Cypress Semiconductor Corporation |
| Silego Technology, Inc. |
| 3:2013cv04412 |
| September 24, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Maxine M. Chesney |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 |
| 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
51
ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 9, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2014)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO EXTEND PATENT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES. The date for Cypress's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions and accompanying document production is extended to May 9, 2014 and the date for Silego's Invalidity Contentions and accompanying document production is extended to June 23, 2014. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 28, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014)
|
|
Filing
35
PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 2/10/2014. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER RE: CHAMBERS COPIES. The parties are directed to submit in single-sided format all chambers copies of documents filed in the future. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 15, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)
|
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.
