Free Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cv-00016-SLR Document 23 Filed O3/07/2008 Page 1 of 1
Q AO 120 Rev. 3/O4
TO. Maj] Stop 8 THE
` Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
Tao. Box 1450 ACTION REGARDING A PATENT on
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 TRADEMARK
ln Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or I5 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
filed in the U.S. District Court Delaware on the following X Patents or lj Trademarks:
DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT
08cvl6 l/9/08 DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
Riverbed Technology Inc. Quantum Corporation
A.C.N. l20 786 012 PTY Ltd.
Rocksoft Ltd.
PATENT OR DATE OF PATENT
TRADEMARK NO- OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
l 5,990,810 l l/23/99 Ross Neil Williams
3
3 __
3 __
3 __
In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY
[I Amendment I] Answer I] Cross Bill [I Other Pleading
PATENT OR DATE OF PATENT
TRADEMARK NO' OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
( (
3 .4 a t ¤¤ HMM - SS Ami wlnnm
3
3 __
3
3 __
In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered orjudgement issued:
DECISION/IUDGEMENT D ` jq
`ffweg gc. gi woéivaoxporre 0/ ·l·0\Hx,L U;/DCL<»Q»r`l‘h€ /UO"/”£’i"
0P OA. C/zu DI zxiawleluc/if )
CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE
PETER T. DALLEO, CLERK OF COURT I 3
It .1. ’ lA 4
Copy 1-—Upon initiation ofaction, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination ofaction, mail this copy to Director
Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Case 1 :08-cv-00016-SLR Document 23-2 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-00018-SLR Document 22 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 1 of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY INC., )
I
Plaintiff, )
I
v. ) Civ. No. 08-16-SLR
QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al., )
I
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At V\Hlmington this 27th day of February, 2008, having reviewed the pending
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, as well as the parties' submissions
regarding jurisdictional discovery, oral argument, and Judge Alsup’s order;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is denied and the motion to transfer
is granted (D.I. 12), based on the procedural history of this litigation} Although I
generally honor a plaintiffs choice of venue, I conclude that the California case is the
tirst—fiIed in the context of the dispute between these parties. Moreover, consistent with
Judge AIsup’s order, it makes sense from "a practical judiciaI—administration viewpoint"
‘M0re specifically, plaintiff in the case at bar, Riverbed, was sued in California by
defendant Quantum for infringing Quantum’s *810 patent; Riverbed counterclaimed for
infringement of its ‘249 patent and successfully moved for dismissal of Quantum’s
California complaint based on a defect in Quantum’s exclusive license. Before
Quantum could cure the defect, Riverbed filed the above declaratory judgment action in
this court, leaving Riverbed the counterclaim plaintiff in the California action and the
declaratoryjudgment plaintiff at bar. (D.l. 20)

Case 1:08-cv-00016-SLR Document 23-2 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-00016-SLR Document 22 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 2 of 2
to have the entire dispute resolved through a single judge and jury. (D.l. 20) Therefore,
although brieting is not complete, I conclude it would be a waste of the court's and
parties' resources to pursue discovery or a further briefing practice on the pending
motion and hereby order that the above captioned case be transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order scheduling oral
argument (D.I. 17) is moot.
United States éstrict Judge
2

Case 1:08-cv-00016-SLR

Document 23

Filed 03/07/2008

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:08-cv-00016-SLR

Document 23-2

Filed 03/07/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00016-SLR

Document 23-2

Filed 03/07/2008

Page 2 of 2