Consolidation Order & Setting a Case Management

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx9NLDCScshnUTZ4WGZMUU4zN1k/edit?usp=sharing

Case Nos.
13-cv-2902-H-BGS
13-cv-2905-H-BGS
13-cv-2906-H-BGS
13-cv-2930-H-BGS
13-cv-2941-H-BGS
13-cv-2942-H-BGS
13-cv-2943-H-BGS

On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation filed a complaint against Defendants G. Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd. and G. Skill USA, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. G. Skill, Case No. 3:13-cv-2902-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendants filed their answer on April 25, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 14.) On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant Intel Corporation alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Intel, Case No. 3:13-cv-2905-H, Doc. No. 13.) The Court denied Defendant Intel’s motion to dismiss on April 24, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 25.) Defendant Intel filed its answer on May 7, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 26.)

On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant 13cv2902; 13cv2905; 13cv2906; 13cv2930;
13cv2941; 13cv2942; 13cv29431


Kingston Technology Company, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Kingston Tech., Case No. 3:13-cv-2906-H, Doc. No. 18.) The Court denied Defendant Kingston’s motion to dismiss on May 19, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 27.) Defendant Kingston filed its answer on May 30, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 28.)

On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant PNY Electronics, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. PNY, Case No. 3:13-cv-2930-H, Doc. No. 13.) The Court denied Defendant PNY’s motion to dismiss on May 20, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 26.) Defendant PNY filed its answer on June 3, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 27.) On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant Transcend Information, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Transcend Info., Case No. 3:13-cv-2941-H, Doc. No. 15.) The Court denied Defendant Transcend’s motion to dismiss on May 16, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 22.) Defendant Transcend filed its answer on May 30, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 24.)

On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant Wintec Industries, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Wintec, Case No. 3:13-cv-2942-H, Doc. No. 15.) Defendant Wintec filed its answer on April 29, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 20.) On April 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant Verbatim Americas, LLC alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108. (See e.Digital v. Verbatim, Case No. 3:13-cv-2943-H, Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Verbatim filed its answer on April 29, 2014. (Id. Doc. No. 19.)

All seven of these cases concern the same patent. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the Court orders that these actions be consolidated for pre-trial purposes absent further order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). The Court also tentatively schedules a telephonic case management conference in this consolidated action for Tuesday, June 10, 2014 at 10:30 a.m before Judge 13cv2902; 13cv2905; 13cv2906; 13cv2930;
13cv2941; 13cv2942; 13cv29431 Marilyn L. Huff.

The Court will issue a tentative scheduling order in advance of this tentative hearing date. The parties must meet and confer regarding the tentative schedule no later than Friday, June 6, 2014. The Plaintiff is responsible for initiating the conference call. If a party objects to any dates or deadlines in the Court’s tentative schedule as an irreconcilable conflict, the party must submit written objections to the Court no later than June 9, 2014. If a Defendant has no objections to the Court’s tentative schedule, that party need not appear at the Court’s case management conference or submit anything. If Plaintiff has no objections and elects not to participate in the Court’s case management conference, it must notify the Court in writing no later than June 9, 2014.

The Court directs Plaintiff to initiate the telephonic case management conference call. The Court further directs any parties appearing at the telephonic case management conference to provide their phone numbers to Plaintiff prior to the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 4, 2014