From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wistron Corp. v. Phillip M. Adams & Assocs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 18, 2011
No. C 10-4458 EMC (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2011)

Summary

holding that conclusory allegations of knowledge of infringement do not satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard

Summary of this case from Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless

Opinion

No. C 10-4458 EMC (MEJ)

08-18-2011

WISTRON CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, et al. Defendants.


NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

The above-captioned case was referred to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for purposes of discovery. Please be advised that if a specific motion was filed before the district court prior to this referral, the noticed date will no longer be in effect. Rather, the parties shall comply with Judge James' Standing Order Regarding Discovery and Dispute Procedures, a copy of which may be obtained from the Northern District of California's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/From the homepage, click on the "Judges" tab on the left margin, then choose Magistrate Judge James.

Counsel are advised that in regard to any pending discovery disputes, they must comply with Judge James' standing order and meet and confer in person. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute after the meet and confer session, they shall file a joint meet and confer letter. A separate letter should be filed for each category of discovery and/or issue in dispute. Upon careful review of the parties' letter, the Court will either order further briefing, oral argument, or deem the matter submitted on the papers. Accordingly, any pending discovery motions are hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a joint letter.

Further, when filing papers that require the Court to take any action (e.g. motions, meet and confer letters, administrative requests), the parties shall, in addition to filing papers electronically, lodge with chambers a printed copy of the papers by noon of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. These printed copies shall be marked "Chambers Copy" and shall be submitted to the Clerk's Office, in an envelope clearly marked with Judge James' name, case number and "E-Filing Chambers Copy." Parties shall not file a paper copy of any document with the Clerk's Office that has already been filed electronically. ALL CHAMBERS COPIES OF ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS MUST INCLUDE ON EACH PAGE THE RUNNING HEADER CREATED BY THE ECF SYSTEM. ELECTRONICALLY FILED

DOCUMENTS MUST BE CITED IN ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS AS FOLLOWS: DKT#_ AT __.

Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Brenda Tolbert, at (415) 522-4708 with any questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Maria-Elena James

Chief United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Wistron Corp. v. Phillip M. Adams & Assocs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 18, 2011
No. C 10-4458 EMC (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2011)

holding that conclusory allegations of knowledge of infringement do not satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard

Summary of this case from Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless

granting motion to dismiss for failure to specify which products allegedly infringe where counterclaimant pled infringement of "computer chips, motherboards, computers, and 'other products'"

Summary of this case from Anza Tech., Inc. v. Edge-Core Networks Corp.

granting motion to dismiss for failure to specify which products allegedly infringe where counterclaimant pled infringement of "computer chips, motherboards, computers, and 'other products'"

Summary of this case from Anza Tech., Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.

granting motion to dismiss for failure to specify which products allegedly infringe where counterclaimant pled infringement of "computer chips, motherboards, computers, and 'other products'"

Summary of this case from Anza Tech., Inc. v. Trendnet, Inc.

granting motion to dismiss for failure to specify which products allegedly infringe where counterclaimant pled infringement of "computer chips, motherboards, computers, and 'other products'"

Summary of this case from Anza Tech., Inc. v. Hawking Techs., Inc.

granting motion to dismiss for failure to specify which products allegedly infringe where counterclaimant pled infringement of "computer chips, motherboards, computers, and 'other products'"

Summary of this case from Anza Tech., Inc. v. Novatel Wireless, Inc.

In Wistron, the court dismissed the complaint because it only listed the categories of allegedly infringing products without identifying any specific examples of a particular infringing computer chip, motherboard, or computer.

Summary of this case from Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. AsusTek Comput. Inc.

noting that "[p]ost-Twombly and Iqbal, courts have typically rejected conclusory allegations of knowledge."

Summary of this case from Selex Commc'ns, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Case details for

Wistron Corp. v. Phillip M. Adams & Assocs.

Case Details

Full title:WISTRON CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 18, 2011

Citations

No. C 10-4458 EMC (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2011)

Citing Cases

Selex Commc'ns, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Indeed, the Defendants cite cases from other circuits requiring a heightened pleading standard with respect…

Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless

First, the Complaint's conclusory claim that Foxconn knew and intended the products to be used in an…