Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-66/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

SV #322886 v1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ULTRA CLEAN’S ADMIN MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING 

Lead Case No. 05-CV-04374 MMC/Consolidated with No. 05-CV-03560 MMC 

KEITH L. SLENKOVICH, CA BAR NO. 129793

kslenkovich@thelen.com

ROBERT E. CAMORS, JR., CA BAR NO. 121204 

bobcamors@thelen.com 

CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, CA BAR NO. 235517 

cogden@thelen.com 

KARIN M. FRENZA, CA BAR NO. 244606 

kfrenza@thelen.com 

TOMOMI HARKEY, CA BAR NO. 244886 

tharkey@thelen.com 

THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & STEINER LLP 

225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1200 

San Jose, CA 95113-1723 

Tel. 408.292.5800 

Fax 408.287.8040 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-defendant

CELERITY, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

CELERITY, INC., 

 Plaintiff/Counter-defendant 

 vs. 

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 

AND SERVICE, INC.,

 Defendant/Counterclaimant 

 and 

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC. 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 05-CV-04374 MMC 

(CASE NO. 05-CV-03560 MMC 

consolidated with lead case 05-CV-04374) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING 

ULTRA CLEAN’S MOTION FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

FOR MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION 

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 569 Filed 12/14/07 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

SV #322886 v1 -1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ULTRA CLEAN’S ADMIN MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING 

Lead Case No. 05-CV-04374 MMC/Consolidated with No. 05-CV-03560 MMC 

 THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the motion of Ultra Clean Technology Systems 

and Service, Inc, and Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Ultra Clean”). The Court, having 

considered the motion presented before the Court, the arguments of counsel in support of and in 

opposition thereto, all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, hereby orders as follows: 

 Ultra Clean’ Motion for Administrative Relief Regarding Briefing Schedule for Motion to 

Stay Injunction is hereby DENIED. Celerity’s Opposition and Ultra Clean’s Reply shall be filed in 

accordance with Local Rule 7-3. 

Dated: _______________ ___________________________ 

 HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

December 14, 2007

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 569 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2