Filed: Oct. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 22, 26 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On October 22, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on defendant's motion dismiss. (Dkt. No. 22.) As stated on the record, and confirmed herein, having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, the Court DENIES defendant's motion. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetch, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 , 126-37 (2007) and Hewlett-Packard Co. v
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 22, 26 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On October 22, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on defendant's motion dismiss. (Dkt. No. 22.) As stated on the record, and confirmed herein, having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, the Court DENIES defendant's motion. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetch, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 , 126-37 (2007) and Hewlett-Packard Co. v...
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 22, 26
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On October 22, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on defendant's motion dismiss. (Dkt. No. 22.) As stated on the record, and confirmed herein, having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, the Court DENIES defendant's motion. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetch, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 126-37 (2007) and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff also submitted a motion to seal certain exhibits and portions of its opposition brief on the grounds that the information was provided under the protective order. (Dkt. No. 26.) Defendant, in response, seeks affirmatively to have the material sealed on the grounds that the information contains "confidential licensing information." (Dkt. No. 27.) It is not clear to the Court that plaintiff agrees or that such information was, in fact, licensing information. However, as the motion is not dispositive, the Court will GRANT the motion to seal for purposes of this motion only but is not yet convinced that such information would satisfy the "compelling reasons" standard which will be at issue later in the litigation. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 WL 328478 (2012).
Accordingly, and as noted on the record, defendant SHALL file an answer by no later than November 5, 2019. Additionally, and as noted on the record, the Court SETS an initial case management conference for Monday, December 2, 2019 on the Court's 2:00 p.m. calendar in Courtroom 1 of the Federal Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California. By Monday, November 25, 2019, the parties shall file a joint case management statement in compliance with the Civil Local Rules of the Northern District of California and this Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases.
This Order terminates Docket Numbers 22 and 26.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
