Free Order on Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 110 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY :
CONSULTANTS, INC., :
Plaintiff, :
v. :Civil Action No. O4—l436—JJF
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., :
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., :
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS :
AMERICA, L.P., MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC :
INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., MATSUSHITA :
ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, :
VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN, LTD., JVC :
COMPANY OF AMERICA, NOKIA :
CORPORATION, NOKIA, INC., :
HEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY, and :
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, :
Defendants. :
ORDER
WHEREAS, the Court granted Defendants’ Joint Motion To Stay
Action Pending Resolution Of Patent Ownership Dispute Between
Plaintiff And Mirage Systems, Inc. (D.I. 109);
WHEREAS, Defendant Eastman Kodak Company filed a Motion For
Protective Order, requesting that the Court hold “discovery in
abeyance pending determination of the ownership of the asserted
patents” (D.I. 85};
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed a Motion To Compel Eastman
Kodak Company To Substantively Respond To Plaintiff’s Outstanding
Discovery Requests And To Move Forward With The Ownership-Related
Discovery In This Case And Certification Pursuant To Local Rule
7.l.l (D.I. 87);

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 110 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
l. Defendant Eastman Kodak Company’s Motion For Protective
Order (D.I. 85) is DENIED AS MDOT.
2. Plaintiff St. Clair's Motion To Compel Eastman Kodak Company
To Substantively Respond To Plaintiff’s Outstanding
Discovery Requests And To Move Forward With The Ownership-
Related Discovery In This Case And Certification Pursuant To
Local Rule 7.l.l (D.I. 87) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW
upon expiration of the stay.
3. Plaintiff St. Clair’s Motion For Leave To File Under Seal A
Supplemental Brief And Attachment To Plaintiff’s Motion For
An Order Compelling Defendant Eastman Kodak Company To
Substantively Respond To Plaintiff’s Outstanding Discovery
Requests And To Move Forward With Ownership-Related
Discovery In This Case And Certification Pursuant To Local
Rule 7.l.l (D.I. 90) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW upon
expiration of the stay.
February K, 2006
UN D ST TES ISTRICT J GE