Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-124/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, LTD., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. 06-0162 MMC 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE MOTION TO STAY;

DEFERRING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

PENDING RESOLUTION OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff’s proposed judgment, filed November 16, 2007. 

Defendants have filed objections thereto, to which plaintiff has replied. Also before the

Court is defendants’ Administrative Motion for Leave to File Motion to Stay Entry of

Judgment Until Completion of Post-Trial Motions, filed December 3, 2007; plaintiff has filed

opposition thereto. On December 10, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for a permanent

injunction, noticed for hearing on January 18, 2008. Having read and considered the

above-referenced filings, the Court rules as follows.

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion to stay entry of judgment is hereby

DENIED; the possibility that a post-trial motion will be successful does not constitute good

cause to delay entry of judgment. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s recently-filed motion

for a permanent injunction, the Court hereby DEFERS entry of judgment until such time as

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 944 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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

the Court has ruled with respect to whether plaintiff is entitled to such relief. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(c) (providing “every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in

whose favor it is rendered is entitled”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 944 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2