Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Written by Human No AI

In the following paper, I have my goal to observe the judicial session which took place on May 9, 2011, between Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al and A10 Networks, Inc. et al. The proceeding was held by the United States district court judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The case’s settlement was conducted functionally, the events of the case’s disposal were organized by the court prudentially, and operations of the Court had a reasonable and balanced basis.

The case’s plaintiffs are Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., the Delaware Corporation, and Foundry Networks, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The defendants are A10 Networks, Inc., a Californian corporation, Lee Chen, an individual, Rajkumar Jalan, an individual, Liang Hang, an individual, Steven Hwan, an individual, and David Cheung, an individual. The case issue the parties were having is 35: 271 Patent Infringement. The defendants were charged with the violation of patent rights which led to serious economic losses by the plaintiffs. The nature of the proceeding was normal, the events of the case’s disposal were organized by the court prudentially, the parties were reasonable and defended their rights by the US legislation.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had requested the case management order which served as the basis for the court investigation of this request on May 9, 2011. The court has reviewed and approved the terms of the request of the plaintiffs and has ordered to grant to leave to file their Third Amended Complaint, and the defenders will have to respond to this third complaint by the decision of Hon. Lucy H. Koh. on May 9, 2011. The court also ordered to satisfy the protective order for source code review and arranged to do so by the two parties at a mutually agreeable third party location by May 31, 2011. For purposes of a Copyright Claim, the parties will be permitted to perform source code comparisons at this third-party location and the results of all the source comparisons will be saved and available to A10 Networks, Brocade Communications Systems, and Foundry Networks in an electronic form. Each party code will be kept safely in the third party location until all the investigations of the case are done and the cash settlement will be developed. This is a very appropriate and well-thought decision by the court, especially if to take the Copyright specific of the case under consideration into account. As to the procedure for discovery motions, all motions to compel will be heard by the court and the lead trial counsel shall argue all the discovery motions. Concerning the case management schedule, the court has been ordered to specify on its every date and planned all the main procedures to be accomplished by July 16, 2012, when the first day of trial will take place at 9:00 a.m.

Concluding on what has been mentioned above, it should be stated that all the operations of the Court have a reasonable and balanced basis, all the decisions made by the judge are appropriate and certainly lead to the case’s settlement in the proper period. In addition, the Copyright specific of the case is taken into consideration in a very appropriate way and all the case investigation procedures are planned accordingly.

Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, January 12). Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al. https://ivypanda.com/essays/brocade-communications-systems-inc-et-al-v-a10-networks-inc-et-al/

Work Cited

"Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al." IvyPanda, 12 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/brocade-communications-systems-inc-et-al-v-a10-networks-inc-et-al/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al'. 12 January.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al." January 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/brocade-communications-systems-inc-et-al-v-a10-networks-inc-et-al/.

1. IvyPanda. "Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al." January 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/brocade-communications-systems-inc-et-al-v-a10-networks-inc-et-al/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al." January 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/brocade-communications-systems-inc-et-al-v-a10-networks-inc-et-al/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, you can request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1