`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civ. No. 18-966-CFC/CJB
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`The Court will hear on December 14, 2022 at 1 :00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B
`
`oral argument on VLSI's response to the Court's August 1, 2022 Order. The
`
`parties are invited to submit on or before December 2, 2022 supplemental briefs of
`
`no more than 7,500 words and to address in their briefing, among other things, the
`
`following questions:
`
`1. Did the Court have the authority to issue its April 18, 2022 Standing
`
`Order Regarding Disclosure Statements Required by Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 7.1?
`
`2. Without knowing the identity of the true owners of VLSI, how can the
`
`Court assure itself that it does not have a conflict of interest that
`
`precludes it from presiding over the case?
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 988 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 38109
`
`3. Without knowing the identity of the true owners of VLSI, how can the
`
`Court assure itself that its presiding over the case will not create an
`
`appearance of impropriety?
`
`4. Should the Court dismiss the case because of VLSI's failure to provide
`
`the inf01mation required by the Court' s April 18, 2022 Standing Order
`
`Regarding Disclosure Statements Required by Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 7 .1 ? See Doe v. Megless, 654 F .3d 404, 412 (3d Cir. 20 11 );
`
`see also Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392,394 (1884) (Holmes, J.) (" It
`
`is desirable that the trial of causes should take place under the public eye,
`
`not because the controversies of one citizen with another are of public
`
`concern, but because it is of the highest moment that those who
`
`administer justice should always act under the sense of public
`
`responsibility, and that every citizen should be able to satisfy himself
`
`with his own eyes as to the mode in which a public duty is performed.").
`
`10.,7.2.z_
`Date
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
