Scribd
Upload
14K views2 pages

Update Order

The judge had asked the parties in a patent infringement case to give their associates the chance to argue two of six pending motions set for a hearing. However, the parties jointly stipulated to take all the motions off calendar and submit them without a hearing. The judge expressed disappointment that associates were again deprived of an opportunity to argue in court. He noted the irony that two of the motions sought millions in fees and costs, yet a few more dollars could not be spent to give associates this experience.

Uploaded by

Frederick Bartlett
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14K views2 pages

Update Order

The judge had asked the parties in a patent infringement case to give their associates the chance to argue two of six pending motions set for a hearing. However, the parties jointly stipulated to take all the motions off calendar and submit them without a hearing. The judge expressed disappointment that associates were again deprived of an opportunity to argue in court. He noted the irony that two of the motions sought millions in fees and costs, yet a few more dollars could not be spent to give associates this experience.

Uploaded by

Frederick Bartlett
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1116 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,


Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER RE: PARTIES STIPULATION


TO VACATE HEARING
(Re: Docket No. 1115)

10

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,


Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

12
13

The day before last, I expressed my concerns about the lack of courtroom opportunities for

14

law firm associates in intellectual property cases like this one.1 Recognizing the courts own

15

important role in encouraging clients and partners to give up the podium once in a while, I asked

16

that each party give associates the chance to argue just two of six motions set for hearing on

17

Monday.2

18

This morning, the parties and their counsel responded. But rather than confirm their

19

commitment to this exercise, the parties jointly stipulated simply to take all motions off calendar

20

and submit them without any hearing.3 No explanation was given; perhaps associate preparation

21

and travel costs were the issue. In any event, once again, another big intellectual property case

22

will come and go, and the associates who toil on it will largely do so without ever being heard.

23

I appreciate that my order acknowledged the possibility that the parties would decline this

24
1

See Docket No. 1112.

See id. at 2; see also Docket Nos. 1062, 1065, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074.

See Docket No. 1115.

25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: PARTIES STIPULATION TO VACATE HEARING

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1116 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 2

opportunity and simply submit their motions on the papers.4 But I would be remiss if I did not

observe the irony of another missed opportunity to invest in our professions future when two of

the motions originally noticed for hearing seek massive fees and costs.5 To be clear, GSI asks for

$6,810,686.69 in attorneys fees, $1,828,553.07 in non-taxable costs6 and $337,300.86 in taxable

costs,7 while UMI asks for $6,694,562 in attorneys fees, $648,166 in expenses8 and $302,579.70

in taxable costs.9 That a few more dollars could not be spent is disappointing to me. My

disappointment, however, is unlikely to compare to the disappointment of the associates, who

were deprived yet again of an opportunity to argue in court.

SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: March 11, 2016


_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court


Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4

See Docket No. 1112 at 2.

22

See Docket Nos. 1065, 1074.

23

See Docket No. 1064-4 at 1.

24

See Docket No. 1066 at 1.

25

See Docket No. 1074-1 at 25.

26

21

27
28

See Docket No. 1086 at 1. Each party specifies that these fees and costs are not the final figures.
See Docket No. 1064-1 at 1 n.2; Docket No. 1074-1 at 25.
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: PARTIES STIPULATION TO VACATE HEARING

You might also like