Chilisin Electronics Corp

General

Total Cases3

Active Cases--

Patents9

CourtsD. Nebraska N.D. California

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

PTAB

chilisin-electronics

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L2

E

PTAB

L4

A

CAFC

L4

D

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
06/26/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	MOTION for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge re 378 Order,,, filed by Chilisin America Ltd., Chilisin Electronics Corp.. Responses due by 7/10/2024. Replies due by 7/17/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lamberson, Jonathan) (Filed on 6/26/2024) (Entered: 06/26/2024)
06/18/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER re 354 : The Court ORDERS that the July Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for July 11, 2024 at 2:00pm, is reset to July 25, 2024 at 2:00pm (videoconference only). A Joint Case Management Statement is therefore due by July 18, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on June 18, 2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tltlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2024) (Entered: 06/18/2024) ORDER re 354 : The Court ORDERS that the July Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for July 11, 2024 at 2:00pm, is reset to July 25, 2024 at 2:00pm (videoconference only). A Joint Case Management Statement is therefore due by July 18, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on June 18, 2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tltlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2024) (Entered: 06/18/2024)
06/18/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 7/18/2024. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/25/2024 02:00 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. (rfm, COURT USER) (Filed on 6/18/2024) (Entered: 06/18/2024)
06/17/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER: On May 15, 2024, Judge Ryu denied the parties' April 2, 2024 joint discovery letter 367 , 370 and ordered Defendants to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's December 14, 2021 ruling 303 in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-9. Defendants did so on May 21, 2024. 374 On May 22, 2024, Judge Ryu granted leave and construed Defendants' filing as the motion for reconsideration. 375 Upon further review, Defendants' motion has two parts. The second part is a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's order. But in the first part [Docket No. 374 at 1-2], Defendants essentially object to Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order. If Defendants wish to appeal the discovery order, they are required to file a "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge" before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court therefore denies the first part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration without prejudice. If Defendants wish to appeal Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order they must file an objection before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court does not express an opinion on the timeliness of such an objection. The court holds in abeyance the second part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration pending Judge Thompson's decision on an objection, should Defendants choose to file one. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/17/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2024) (Entered: 06/17/2024) ORDER: On May 15, 2024, Judge Ryu denied the parties' April 2, 2024 joint discovery letter 367 , 370 and ordered Defendants to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's December 14, 2021 ruling 303 in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-9. Defendants did so on May 21, 2024. 374 On May 22, 2024, Judge Ryu granted leave and construed Defendants' filing as the motion for reconsideration. 375 Upon further review, Defendants' motion has two parts. The second part is a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's order. But in the first part [Docket No. 374 at 1-2], Defendants essentially object to Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order. If Defendants wish to appeal the discovery order, they are required to file a "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge" before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court therefore denies the first part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration without prejudice. If Defendants wish to appeal Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order they must file an objection before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court does not express an opinion on the timeliness of such an objection. The court holds in abeyance the second part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration pending Judge Thompson's decision on an objection, should Defendants choose to file one. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/17/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2024) (Entered: 06/17/2024)
06/17/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER: On May 15, 2024, Judge Ryu denied the parties' April 2, 2024 joint discovery letter 367, 370 and ordered Defendants to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's December 14, 2021 ruling 303 in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-9. Defendants did so on May 21, 2024. 374 On May 22, 2024, Judge Ryu granted leave and construed Defendants' filing as the motion for reconsideration. 375 Upon further review, Defendants' motion has two parts. The second part is a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's order. But in the first part [Docket No. 374 at 1-2], Defendants essentially object to Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order. If Defendants wish to appeal the discovery order, they are required to file a "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge" before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court therefore denies the first part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration without prejudice. If Defendants wish to appeal Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order they must file an objection before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court does not express an opinion on the timeliness of such an objection. The court holds in abeyance the second part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration pending Judge Thompson's decision on an objection, should Defendants choose to file one. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/17/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2024) (Entered: 06/17/2024) ORDER: On May 15, 2024, Judge Ryu denied the parties' April 2, 2024 joint discovery letter 367, 370 and ordered Defendants to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's December 14, 2021 ruling 303 in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-9. Defendants did so on May 21, 2024. 374 On May 22, 2024, Judge Ryu granted leave and construed Defendants' filing as the motion for reconsideration. 375 Upon further review, Defendants' motion has two parts. The second part is a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hamilton's order. But in the first part [Docket No. 374 at 1-2], Defendants essentially object to Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order. If Defendants wish to appeal the discovery order, they are required to file a "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge" before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court therefore denies the first part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration without prejudice. If Defendants wish to appeal Judge Ryu's May 15, 2024 discovery order they must file an objection before Judge Thompson pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. The court does not express an opinion on the timeliness of such an objection. The court holds in abeyance the second part of Defendants' motion for reconsideration pending Judge Thompson's decision on an objection, should Defendants choose to file one. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/17/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2024) (Entered: 06/17/2024)
05/29/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 374 Discovery Letter Brief Motion For Leave To File Motion For Reconsideration ) filed byCyntec Company, Ltd.. (Yen, Lucy) (Filed on 5/29/2024) (Entered: 05/29/2024)
05/22/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER denying 346 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on 5/22/2024. (rfm, COURT USER) (Filed on 5/22/2024) (Entered: 05/22/2024)
05/22/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER: The court has received Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 374 . The court grants the motion for leave and treats the motion as Defendants' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff shall file a response within 7 days of this order. Plaintiff's response is limited to three pages and cannot incorporate any other material by reference or contain footnotes. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 5/22/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2024) (Entered: 05/22/2024) ORDER: The court has received Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 374 . The court grants the motion for leave and treats the motion as Defendants' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff shall file a response within 7 days of this order. Plaintiff's response is limited to three pages and cannot incorporate any other material by reference or contain footnotes. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 5/22/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2024) (Entered: 05/22/2024)
05/21/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	Motion For Leave To File Motion For Reconsideration filed by Chilisin America Ltd., Chilisin Electronics Corp. (Lamberson, Jonathan) (Filed on 5/21/2024) Modified on 5/21/2024 (mcl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2024)
05/17/24	Cyntec Co Ltd v. Chilisin Electronics Corp 3:18-CV-00939 ( N.D. CA )	Discovery Letter Brief filed by Cyntec Company, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Defendant's Notice of Subpoena to Apple)(Yoon, James) (Filed on 5/17/2024) (Entered: 05/17/2024)