Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-69/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 ULTRA CLEAN’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A

MATTER OF LAW; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc. and Ultra

Clean Holdings, Inc.’s (collectively, “Ultra Clean”) “Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b),” filed December 14, 2007. Celerity, Inc. (“Celerity”) has

filed opposition, to which Ultra Clean has replied. Having read and considered the papers

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

decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 25, 2008, and rules as

follows:

1. Contrary to Ultra Clean’s argument, Celerity offered sufficient evidence to support

the jury’s finding that Ultra Clean’s Predator includes a “first manifold” and a “second

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 608 Filed 01/25/08 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

1

The Court found the word “second,” as appearing in the paragraph of Claim 6

beginning “a first manifold,” was properly corrected to read “first,” (see TT 1471-1485), and

that Ultra Clean was not prejudiced by the timing of said correction, (see TT 1460-1462). 

To the extent Ultra Clean, by the instant motion, argues said findings were erroneous, the

Court finds Ultra Clean has failed to show its entitlement to relief; specifically, Ultra Clean

has failed to show that the correction was not of the type a district court properly may make

and/or that Ultra Clean relied to its detriment on the original language or was otherwise

prejudiced.

2

manifold,” and that said manifolds each have an “inlet” and “outlet” that access a “common

surface,” as claimed in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 6,435,215 (“‘215 Patent”), (see, e.g.,

Transcript of Jury Trial Proceedings (“TT”) 476:5- 482:1; Slenkovich Decl., filed December

29, 2007, Ex. X (Trial Exhibit 338)), and as claimed in Claim 6 of the ‘215 Patent, (see, e.g.,

TT 476:16-18, 486:11-18).1

 See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S.

133, 153-54 (2000) (holding motion for judgment as matter of law properly denied where

non-moving party offered sufficient evidence for jury to find in favor of non-moving party on

issue).

2. Contrary to Ultra Clean’s argument, Celerity offered sufficient evidence to support

the jury’s finding that the Predator includes a “bridging component” as claimed in Claim 1 of

the ‘215 patent, (see, e.g., TT 482:4-485:10, 621:1-624:18), and as claimed in Claim 6 of

the ‘215 Patent, (see, e.g., TT 488:21-489:22). Moreover, and contrary to Ultra Clean’s

argument, Celerity offered sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Ultra Clean

offered to sell and/or sold infringing Predator products comprising a “bridging component”

as claimed in Claim 1, (see, e.g., TT 487:23-488:20; Slenkovich Decl. Ex. Z (Trial Exhibit

341)), and as claimed in Claim 6, (see, e.g., TT 488:21-489:22; Slenkovich Decl. Ex. Z).

3. To the extent Ultra Clean’s motion is based on the argument that Celerity’s

evidence was insufficient to rebut Ultra Clean’s “invalidity charges,” the Court declines to

consider the motion, because Ultra Clean did not properly raise the issue of invalidity in a

pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2) (providing

motion for judgment as matter of law “must specify the judgment sought and the law and

facts that entitle the movant to the judgment”); Duro-Last, Inc. v. Custom Seal, Inc., 321 F.

3d 1098, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding, where plaintiff failed to “properly raise [ ]

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 608 Filed 01/25/08 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

obviousness issue in a JMOL motion before the cause was submitted to the jury,” district

court erred in granting plaintiff’s post-judgment motion for judgment as matter of law). 

Here, defendants’ renewed pre-verdict Rule 50 motion included only a passing reference to

“invalidity charges,” (see TT 1417), without any specification as to the particular theory of

invalidity at issue, let alone elaboration with respect to the evidence offered by the

respective parties relevant to any such defense. Cf. id. at 1107 (holding pre-verdict Rule

50 motion based on non-moving party’s failure to offer evidence to establish anticipation

insufficient to support post-verdict Rule 50 motion based on obviousness).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, UTC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law is

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 608 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3