Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863-34/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE CASE SCHEDULE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP 

(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM THE CASE SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 520

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. initiated this case on July 29, 

2010, asserting that then-defendants IPtronics Inc. and IPtronics A/S infringed two of its patents. 

See Docket Item No. 1. The parties then engaged in claim construction briefing and on September 

4, 2012, the court issued an order construing the identified disputed terms from both patents. See

Docket item No. 258. Although nearly three years have passed since the claim construction 

ruling, not much has changed. The same patents are still in-suit.

There have been some changes on the business end, however. As often occurs in the 

industry, IPtronics A/S was purchased by Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. (“MTL”), its name was 

changed to Mellanox Technologies Denmark ApS, and its affairs were wound up. Plaintiffs were 

permitted to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to account for this change. See Docket Item No. 

453. They were also permitted to join as defendants the corporate relations of the company 

formerly known as IPtronics A/S, MTL and Mellanox Technologies, Inc. (“MTI”). 

Defendants sought to have the claims reconstrued as a result of their entrance into the case. 

The court disagreed such proceedings were appropriate, explaining that “the Mellanox defendants 

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 600 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE CASE SCHEDULE

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

Northern District of California

will not be considered new parties, but rather have entered this action in place of IPtronics and 

take over the defense where IPtronics left off.” See Docket Item No. 517. A case management 

order was issued without deadlines related to claim construction. 

Unsatisfied with the court’s explanation, Defendants filed the present motion which they 

style as one seeking relief from the case schedule. See Docket Item No. 520. Plaintiffs oppose the 

motion. Having carefully reviewed the arguments, the court is no more persuaded by Defendants’ 

position now than it was previously. The time for claim construction has long since passed, and 

Defendants have provided no good reason to revisit it. Accordingly, this motion will be denied for 

the reasons articulated below. 

II. DISCUSSION

Despite how Defendants have chosen to arrange this motion, this is essentially a motion 

seeking reconsideration of decisions the court has already made. Indeed, after reviewing a 

proposed stipulation submitted on January 22, 2015, which contemplated an additional round of 

claim construction, the court declined to enter the parties’ proposed case schedule and instead 

ordered them “to file an updated Joint Case Management Conference Statement on or before 

January 29, 2015, which explains, inter alia, why additional claim construction proceedings should 

occur in this action.” See Docket Item No. 509. The parties did so, and Defendants presented 

many of the same arguments in support of their position they now repeat in the instant motion. 

The court considered Defendants’ arguments, found them uncompelling in light of its intimate 

experience with this action, and determined that further claim construction proceedings were 

unwarranted. 

In addition, and although this is not entirely clear, it is worth noting that what Defendants 

appear to seek here is not the construction of newly-asserted claims or additional claim terms 

unique to them. Instead, what Defendants seem to want is a claim construction do-over. 

The court, however, does not modify orders based on arguments already presented and 

rejected, nor does it arbitrarily erase work already done and reengage lengthy, time-consuming 

and expensive proceedings simply because a party asks for it. If that was how it worked, litigation 

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 600 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE CASE SCHEDULE

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

Northern District of California

would never conclude. Instead, Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires a party seeking leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration to make a specified showing: (1) “[t]hat at the time of the motion for 

leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented,” (2) “[t]he 

emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) 

“[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which 

were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” 

Construing this motion as it should be construed under Rule 7-9, Defendants have failed to 

justify the need for any sort of relief. They cite no material differences in fact or law, new or 

otherwise, that have occurred since the court denied Defendant’s request for more claim 

construction. 

Nor have Defendants demonstrated some failure to consider material facts or dispositive 

legal arguments. In this motion, Defendants argue that due process and fairness should entitle 

them to bypass a significant ruling entered after extensive efforts by all involved. But Defendants 

already raised this issue in response to the court’s request to explain why further claim 

construction was necessary. There, Defendants indicated at the outset that “[t]he claim 

construction proceedings are required to allow Mellanox, who has not had an opportunity to 

present its claim construction issues to the Court, to present any claim constructions issues it may 

have in accordance with the Local Rules.” See Docket Item No. 513. The court read that

contention, as it has again in examining this motion, and considered whether or not MTL and MTI 

would be denied process if it could not present “its claim construction issues,” whatever those may 

be. The court determined that no such denial would occur because it was not, and still has not,

been shown that the interests of MTL and MTI are different from, in conflict with, or adversarial 

to those of the former IPtronics A/S. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. It is admitted that 

Defendants are related companies, given that MTL acquired IPtronics A/S and changed its name 

to Mellanox Technologies Denmark ApS, and since each defendant is represented by the same 

attorneys in this action, the likelihood of disparate interests between them is negligible, if not 

altogether impossible. The fact they are separate legal entities is of no moment under these 

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 600 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE CASE SCHEDULE

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

Northern District of California

circumstances. 

The court has reviewed Defendants’ legal citations but finds then unpersuasive. None 

address the situation presented here: whether claim construction must be redone when one 

company acquires another in the midst of patent litigation. In contrast, they each address whether 

a defendant is entitled to de novo construction of claim terms previously construed in separate 

litigation against an unrelated defendant. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Techs. Corp., 182 

F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. Tex. 2002) (holding that constructions issued by one court within litigation 

against Hyundai Electronics Industries Company do not preclude the construction of those same 

terms in later litigation against Linear Technologies Corporation); see also Nilssen v. Motorola, 

Inc., 80 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (stating, in a footnote, that independent construction of 

claim terms would occur even though another judge had construed the same terms in an action 

against another defendant). They also support this court’s opinion that only later-sued defendants 

with “competing interests and strategies” are entitled to an individualized claim construction 

hearing. See, e.g., WiAV Networks LLC v. 3COM Corp., No. C 10-03448 WHA, 2010 WL 

3895047, at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110957 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010). 

There is rarely a complete “win” in litigation, and the disappointed side of the case cannot 

sidestep a ruling just because it is not enamored with it. Yet that is exactly what Defendants have 

tried to do here. Defendants may not like the claim construction order, but that is the order that 

was entered in this case. In the end, no violation of due process or general fairness can be 

sustained due to the alliance of interests between MTL, MTI and the company that was IPtronics 

A/S. There is no reason to conclude otherwise based on this record. 

III. ORDER

The Motion for Relief from the Case Schedule (Docket Item No. 520) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 600 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 4