Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXCEL INNOVATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INDIVOS CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C-03-3125 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 298)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed September 2, 2005, for reconsideration of

the Court’s July 11, 2005 order denying without prejudice plaintiff Excel Innovations, Inc.’s

(“Excel”) motion for entry of judgment, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, on the issue of patent ownership. Defendants have filed opposition to the

motion, to which Excel has replied. Defendants also have filed a request to file a surreply,

which the Court has granted, in a separate order. 

As noted in the Court’s August 24, 2005 order granting Excel leave to file a motion

for reconsideration, the Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s Rule

54(b) motion despite the pendency of defendants’ appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order

lifting the automatic stay to allow Excel to file its Rule 54(b) motion before this Court. See

In re Marino, 234 B.R. 767, 769 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]hile an appeal of an order is

pending, the trial court retains jurisdiction to implement or enforce the order.”) Further, as

noted in the Court’s August 24, 2005 order, the Court also is satisfied that it should not stay

its consideration of the Rule 54(b) motion pending the appeal, in the absence of either

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 308 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

(1) an order from the bankruptcy court staying its order lifting the automatic stay, or (2) a

showing why such relief was not obtained from the bankruptcy court. See Fed. R. Bankr.

Proc. 8005. No such showing has been made.

Turning to the merits, Rule 54(b) provides that “the court may direct the entry of a

final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an

express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction

for the entry of judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In considering whether to grant a

Rule 54(b) motion, the Supreme Court has stated that courts “must take into account

judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved,” and expressly noted that

“sound judicial administration does not require that Rule 54(b) requests be granted

routinely.” See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 10 (1980); see

also Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 2005 WL 2126786 at *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2005). 

In determining whether to enter judgment under Rule 54(b), courts must “assure that

application of the Rule effectively preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal

appeals.” See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. at 8. The district

court may consider “such factors as whether the claims under review [are] separable from

the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already

determined [is] such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more

than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General

Electric Co., 446 U.S. at 8. The district court also may consider whether “an appellate

resolution of the certified claims would facilitate a settlement of the remaining claims.” See

id. at 8 n.2. “[B]ecause the number of possible situations is large,” however, the Supreme

Court has been “reluctant either to fix or sanction narrow guidelines for the district courts to

follow” in evaluating Rule 54(b) motions. See id. at 10-11.

 In the instant case, with respect to judicial administrative interests, the Court

recognizes that granting the Rule 54(b) motion may facilitate the resolution of Excel’s

bankruptcy proceeding. The Court finds, however, that granting the Rule 54(b) motion

would create the potential for a number of procedural problems in light of (1) defendants’

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 308 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

pending appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order upon which this Court’s jurisdiction to

entertain the instant Rule 54(b) motion depends; and (2) the separately pending bankruptcy

petition of counterdefendant Aviv LLC (“Aviv”), to whom ownership rights in the patents

purportedly were assigned by Excel, and as to whom the automatic stay remains in effect. 

Under such circumstances, the Court cannot say with a reasonable degree of certainty that

“no appellate court would have to decide the [issue of patent ownership] more than once.” 

See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. at 8. 

Further, equitable considerations do not weigh in favor of a partial judgment herein,

given the very serious allegations raised in defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions,

which the Court is not permitted to address at this time due to the automatic stay of those

proceedings against Excel, and which ultimately could result in the dismissal of plaintiff’s

infringement claims.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s

decision not to grant entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) on the issue of patent

ownership, and plaintiff’s Rule 54(b) motion is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 298.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 308 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 3