Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-10/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. C-06-0162 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC’S

AMENDED ANSWER AND

COUNTERCLAIMS; ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

PORTIONS OF SEOUL

SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD’S

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS;

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTS

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court are two motions filed June 15, 2006 by plaintiff Nichia Corporation

(“Nichia”): (1) Nichia’s motion to strike, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, portions of the Amended Answer of Defendant Seoul Semiconductor, Inc. to

Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s Complaint and Amended Counterclaims; and (2) Nichia’s

motion to strike, pursuant to Rule 12(f), portions of the Answer of Defendant Seoul

Semiconductor Co., Ltd. to Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s Complaint and Counterclaims. 

Seoul Semiconductor, Inc., (“Seoul USA”) and Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. (“Seoul

Korea”) have filed a joint response, requesting leave to amend and submitting proposed

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 114 Filed 07/18/06 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

1

The joint response also argues that each defendant’s affirmative defense and

counterclaim alleging non-infringement are pleaded in conformity with Rule 8, and thus

should not be stricken. In reply, Nichia clarifies that its motions to strike do not seek an

order striking such affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Consequently, the Court does

not further address the issue.

2

amended pleadings.1 Nichia has filed a single reply, stating therein it does not oppose the

requests to amend.

Having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in response to the motions, the

Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing

scheduled for July 21, 2006, and rules as follows:

1. Nichia’s motion to strike portions of Seoul USA’s amended answer and amended

counterclaims is hereby GRANTED, without prejudice to Seoul USA’s filing, no later than

July 24, 2006, its proposed Second Amended Answer of Defendant Seoul Semiconductor,

Inc. to Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s Complaint and Amended Counterclaims.

2. Nichia’s motion to strike portions of Seoul Korea’s answer and counterclaims is

hereby GRANTED, without prejudice to Seoul Korea’s filing, no later than July 24, 2006, its

proposed Amended Answer of Defendant Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. to Plaintiff Nichia

Corporation’s Complaint and Counterclaims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 114 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2