EICES RESEARCH, INC. v. APPLE, INC., 5:14-CV-489-D (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20141203b70
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge. Plaintiff filed a motion for an order consolidating the three above-captioned related patent infringement cases into cause number 5:14-CV-489-D, EICES Research. Inc. v. Apple. Inc. , for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and claim construction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Some pretrial consolidation would appear to promote judicial economy and avoid unnecessary costs and delay. The parties shall meet and confer concerning pretrial consolida
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge. Plaintiff filed a motion for an order consolidating the three above-captioned related patent infringement cases into cause number 5:14-CV-489-D, EICES Research. Inc. v. Apple. Inc. , for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and claim construction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Some pretrial consolidation would appear to promote judicial economy and avoid unnecessary costs and delay. The parties shall meet and confer concerning pretrial consolidat..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed a motion for an order consolidating the three above-captioned related patent infringement cases into cause number 5:14-CV-489-D, EICES Research. Inc. v. Apple. Inc., for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and claim construction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Some pretrial consolidation would appear to promote judicial economy and avoid unnecessary costs and delay. The parties shall meet and confer concerning pretrial consolidation and seek to reach an agreement. The parties shall describe any such agreement in their joint case management proposal. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
