You're viewing Docket Item 162 from the case Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Christenson et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:10-cv-00422-LRH -GWF Document 162 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSHUA CHRISTENSON, et al.,

Defendants.


AND RELATED CLAIMS.


* * *
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-CV-00422-LRH-GWF

ORDER

Before the court are: (1) Plaintiff’s first Motion for Leave to Supplement Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims with Recently Filed Ninth Circuit Authority (#154),

along with Defendants’ opposition (#155), and Plaintiff’s reply (#156); and (2) Plaintiff’s second

Motion for Leave to Supplement Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims

with Recently Filed Ninth Circuit Authority (#157), along with Defendants’ opposition (#158), and

Plaintiff’s reply (#159).

Plaintiff’s first motion requests the court to consider the Ninth Circuit’s recently-filed

decision Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 4470623 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2011), and

to grant additional briefing on how the decision impacts the parties’ pending motions for summary

judgment. Plaintiff’s second motion requests the court to consider the Northern District of

California’s recent decision in Adobe Systems Inc. v. Kornrumpf, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12228

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Case 2:10-cv-00422-LRH -GWF Document 162 Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 2

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2012). Defendants do not necessarily oppose the court’s consideration of these

new authorities, but they do oppose Plaintiff’s request for supplemental briefing and disagree with

Plaintiff’s position regarding the application of these authorities to the matter before the court.

The court shall grant Plaintiffs’ motions to the extent that the court will consider the

recently filed authorities. However, Plaintiff’s request for supplemental briefing shall be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first Motion for Leave to Supplement

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims with Recently Filed Ninth Circuit

Authority (#154) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second Motion for Leave to Supplement

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims with Recently Filed Ninth Circuit

Authority (#157) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of March, 2012.

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26