IP Verse

Ddc Technology Llc V. Google Llc - 3:23-cv-01160

Explore the details of the Ddc Technology Llc V. Google Llc case under case number 3:23-cv-01160 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
3:23-cv-01160
Filing Date
Mar 15, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Matthew Jones -
DDC Technology, LLC -
Orora Packaging Solutions -
Pyrite VR Ltd -
HMD TECH SARL -
Google LLC -
Structural Graphics LLC -
Landsberg Orora -
Emerge Technologies Inc -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Nov 27, 2023ORDER REASSIGNING CASE.IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin in the San Francisco Division for all further proceedings.1. All future filings shall bear the initials RFL immediately after the case number.2. All case management conference dates are vacated and will be reset by the Court.3. All hearing dates presently scheduled are VACATED. However, existing briefing schedules for motions remain unchanged. All pending motions (regardless of whether they are presently scheduled for hearing) must be RENOTICED for hearing before Judge Lin by the moving party for a date consistent with the Court’s law and motion calendar, but the renoticing of the hearing does not affect the prior briefing schedule.4. Deadlines for ADR compliance and discovery cutoffs remain unchanged.5. All pretrial conference and trial dates currently set for after March 4, 2024, and all other deadlines associated with the case, will remain in place unless otherwise ordered.6. All pretrial conference and trial dates scheduled on or before March 4, 2024, are vacated. Other pretrial deadlines (eg., motions in limine, pretrial statements, proposed joint trial exhibits, etc.) will remain in place. The Court will notify the parties when a status conference will be held to schedule a new pretrial conference and trial dates for affected cases.7. Matters currently referred to a Magistrate Judge will remain before that Magistrate Judge absent further notice.8. Each party is expected to review and become familiar with all applicable standing orders and scheduling notes.9. On or before December 11, 2023, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement (separate statements are appropriate if either party is proceeding without counsel). The statement should not exceed ten pages in length and should address the following items in the following order: a. Date Filed: The date the case was filed; b. Parties: A list or description of each party; c. Claims: A summary of all claims, counter-claims, cross-claims, or third party claims; d. Facts: A brief chronology of the facts and a statement of the principal factual issues in dispute; e. Legal Issues: A brief statement, without extended legal argument, of the disputed points of law, including reference to specific statutes and decisions; f. Relief: A description of the relief sought and the damages claimed with an explanation as to how damages have been (or will be) computed; g. Discovery: The status of discovery, including any significant discovery management issues, as well as any limits or cutoff dates; h. Related Cases: The status, case name, and case number of any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body; i. Procedural History: A procedural history of the case, including any previous motions that were decided or submitted, any ADR proceedings or settlement conferences that have been scheduled or concluded, any appellate proceedings that are pending or concluded, and any previous referral to a magistrate judge; j. Deadlines: A description of any other deadlines in place before reassignment, including those for ADR, dispositive motions, pretrial conferences, and trials; k. Any modification of deadlines: Any requested modification of these dates, and the reasons for the request; l. Consent to Magistrate: Whether the parties will consent to a magistrate judge for trial; and m. Emergency: Whether there exists an immediate need for a case management conference to be scheduled in the action, and why the parties believe such a need exists.10. The Joint Case Management Statement will not constitute a motion to extend or modify dates. If emergency relief is needed to modify a deadline, and the deadline is not of the type that can be modified via stipulation of the parties without a court order, the requesting party or parties shall additionally file a motion or stipulation for such relief in compliance with Local Rule 6.11. The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. Hearings and trials in any civil case assigned to a judge participating in the Pilot Project are eligible for video recording, upon request and with the consent of the parties and the presiding judge. Please see the Northern Districts webpage about participation in the Pilot Project and General Order 65 for more information. IT IS SO ORDERED.Dated: 11/27/2023FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMark B. Busby, Clerk of Court (kab-adi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2023) (Entered: 11/27/2023)PACER Document
Apr 6, 2023MOTION to Stay Pending Determination of Inter Partes Review of the Patents-In-Suit filed by Google LLC. Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2023 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge Vince Chhabria. Responses due by 4/20/2023. Replies due by 4/27/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Liang, Mark) (Filed on 4/6/2023) Modified on 4/6/2023 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2023)Attachment