Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

CELERITY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

 v.

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

AND SERVICE, INC.

Defendant/Counterclaimant

and

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant /

No. C-05-4374 MMC

(consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER DENYING UCTSS’S MOTION TO

AMEND ORDER TO CERTIFY ORDER

FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc.’s (“UCTSS”)

motion to amend the Court’s January 18, 2006 Order Granting Celerity, Inc.’s Motion to

Align Parties, to certify said order for interlocutory appeal. Celerity, Inc. (“Celerity”) has

filed opposition, to which UCTSS has replied. Having considered the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision

on the papers submitted, VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 10, 2006, and rules

as follows.

A district court may certify for interlocutory appeal an order that “involves a

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 33 Filed 03/01/06 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

where “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

On December 12, 2005, the Court approved the parties’ stipulated request to

consolidate the complaint filed in Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Services, Inc. v.

Celerity, Inc., C-05-3560 MMC, with the complaint filed in Celerity, Inc. v. Ultra Clean

Holdings, Inc., et al., C-05-4374 MMC. As a result of the consolidation, the consolidated

proceeding consisted of two complaints, with UCTSS and Celerity each denominated as

“plaintiff” in one such complaint and “defendant” in the other complaint. In its order of

January 18, 2006, the Court, to effectively manage the instant consolidated matter and

avoid unnecessary confusion, deemed the complaint filed by Celerity to be the main action

and the complaint filed by UCTSS to be the counterclaim. Thereafter, at the case

management conference conducted January 27, 2006, the Court, in response to concerns

raised by UCTSS, made clear that such ruling was not intended to resolve the question of

the order in which any triable issue would be presented at the time of trial or how a party

would be described to the jury. Nevertheless, three court days later, UCTSS filed the

instant motion, contending therein that the Court, by its January 18, 2006 order, has denied

UCTSS the ability to “present its invalidity case first” and to be denominated the “plaintiff” in

presenting its invalidity case, (see UCTSS’s Mot., filed February 1, 2006, at 1:18-19, 9:15-

18), and that in light of such asserted effects, the Court should amend its order to include a

certification for interlocutory appeal.

As noted above, UCTSS’s argument mischaracterizes the January 18, 2006 order. 

In any event, UCTSS has not shown that such order involves a controlling issue of law,

much less that an immediate appeal will materially advance the outcome of the litigation. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Accordingly, UCTSS has failed to show that the January 18, 2006 order should be

amended to certify said order as appropriate for interlocutory appeal.

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 33 Filed 03/01/06 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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, UCTSS’s motion to amend the January 18, 2006 is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 33 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 3