Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corporation
Oyster Optics, LLC |
Ciena Corporation |
4:2021cv02241 |
March 30, 2021 |
US District Court for the Northern District of California |
Jeffrey S White |
Patent |
35 U.S.C. § 271 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 24 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Ciena Corporation identifying Other Affiliate Blackrock, Inc. for Ciena Corporation. (Jacobs, Blair) (Filed on 5/26/2021) |
Filing 23 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ciena Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2021 09:00 AM before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Responses due by 6/9/2021. Replies due by 6/16/2021. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of B. Jacobs ISO Motion to Dismiss, #2 Exhibit 1-5 to Decl. of B. Jacobs ISO Motion to Dismiss, #3 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Blair) (Filed on 5/26/2021) |
Filing 22 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Jeffrey S. White for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by The Clerk on 5/11/21. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2021) |
Filing 21 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Oyster Optics, LLC.. (Kroeger, Paul) (Filed on 5/11/2021) |
Filing 20 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2021) |
Filing 19 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Ciena Corporation.. (Jacobs, Blair) (Filed on 5/11/2021) |
Filing 18 CLERK'S SECOND NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiff/Defendant shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 5/21/2021. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2021) |
Filing 17 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting #16 Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant to Respond to Complaint. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2021) |
Filing 16 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re #1 Complaint, to Extend Time filed by Ciena Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Blair) (Filed on 4/21/2021) |
Filing 15 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting #11 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to John Holley. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2021) |
Filing 14 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting #10 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Christina Ondrick. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2021) |
Filing 13 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting #9 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Blair Jacobs. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2021) |
Filing 12 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiff/Defendant shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. by 5/4/2021 Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2021) |
Filing 11 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of John S. Holley ( Filing fee $ 317, receipt number 0971-15861337.) filed by Ciena Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Stockstill, Raymond) (Filed on 4/20/2021) |
Filing 10 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Christina A. Ondrick ( Filing fee $ 317, receipt number 0971-15861315.) filed by Ciena Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Stockstill, Raymond) (Filed on 4/20/2021) |
Filing 9 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Blair M. Jacobs ( Filing fee $ 317, receipt number 0971-15861295.) filed by Ciena Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Stockstill, Raymond) (Filed on 4/20/2021) |
#Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. [err101] The correct event is SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED under the Initial Pleadings and Service/Service of Process category. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: #8 Affidavit of Service filed by Oyster Optics, LLC. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2021) |
Filing 8 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Ciena Corporation served on on April 5, 2021, answer due 4/26/21, filed by Oyster Optics, LLC. (Mirzaie, Reza) (Filed on 4/12/2021) Modified on 4/13/2021 (mclS, COURT STAFF). |
Filing 7 Summons Issued as to Ciena Corporation. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2021) |
Filing 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 6/21/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/28/2021 01:30 PM. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2021) |
Filing 5 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 4/15/2021. (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2021) |
#Electronic filing error. This filing will not be processed by the clerks office.Please re-file in its entirety as a MOTION in the earliest case number 4:17-CV-05920-JSW. See also Civil Local Rules 3-12 Related Cases. Re: #3 Notice (Other) filed by Oyster Optics, LLC. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2021) |
#Electronic filing error. Incorrect document filed, please refile a Notice of Pendency of Patent. Re: #3 Notice (Other) filed by Oyster Optics, LLC (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Fil ed on 3/31/2021) |
Filing 4 Rule 7.1 Disclosures by Oyster Optics, LLC re #1 Complaint, (Kroeger, Paul) (Filed on 3/30/2021) |
Filing 3 NOTICE by Oyster Optics, LLC re #1 Complaint, Notice of Related Cases (Kroeger, Paul) (Filed on 3/30/2021) |
Filing 2 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding (cc: form mailed to register). (Kroeger, Paul) (Filed on 3/30/2021) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ciena Corporation ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-15771933.). Filed byOyster Optics, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Civil Cover Sheet, #10 Summons)(Kroeger, Paul) (Filed on 3/30/2021) |
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 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.