Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (EAI)

ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDERS ETC.

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ASYST TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMPAK, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 98-20451 JF (EAI)

ORDER1 CLARIFYING PRIOR

ORDERS; AND MODIFYING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

OF MARCH 31, 2006

On March 31, 2006, this Court issued an order (“March 31 Order”) addressing the crossmotions for summary judgment of Plaintiff Asyst Technologies, Inc. (“Asyst”) and Defendants

Jenoptik AG, Jenoptik Infab, Inc., Emtrak, Inc. and Meissner + Wurst GmbH (collectively,

“Jenoptik”). On June 22, 2006, this Court issued an order (“June 22 Order”) denying Jenoptik’s

motion for reconsideration. At a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held the following

day, June 23, 2006, Jenoptik orally raised additional objections to the June 22 Order insofar as it

denies Jenoptik’s motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court’s ruling that Jenoptik may

not litigate the effect of the “communication means.” Asyst subsequently filed a motion for

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 803 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (EAI)

ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDERS ETC.

(JFLC2)

clarification on June 27, 2006, seeking modification of the March 31 order to clarify that the

order of infringement extends not only to independent claim 2, but also to dependent claims 11-

14. Jenoptik filed a motion for clarification on June 28, 2006, seeking clarification that it intends

to file summary judgment motions not only with respect to invalidity, but also with respect to

damages.

A. “Communication Means”

In its March 31 Order, the Court set forth two distinct grounds for its determination that

Jenoptik is precluded from litigating the effect of the “communication means.” First, the Court

pointed out that its summary judgment order of October 9, 2003 explicitly concluded that the

IridNet System meets the “communication means” limitation, and that Jenoptik did not seek

reconsideration of this ruling at the time. March 31 Order at 12. “Separate and apart from

Jenoptik’s failure to provide an adequate explanation of its failure to seek reconsideration” of this

ruling, the Court noted that Jenoptik “never gave any indication in the intervening two years that

it intended to challenge” the ruling on the “communication means.” Id. In order words, the

Court concluded that Jenoptik failed to provide Asyst adequate notice that the “communication

means” was in play.

In its June 22, 2006 Order denying Jenoptik’s motion for reconsideration, the Court

acknowledged that Jenoptik’s decision not to seek reconsideration of the ruling with respect to

the “communication means” may have been reasonable under the circumstances, but concluded

that Jenoptik nonetheless could have sought reconsideration of the “communication means”

aspect of the Court’s summary judgment ruling in 2003. June 22 Order at 5. The Court made

clear, however, that it was not Jenoptik’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration that was

determinative, but rather Jenoptik’s failure to provide any notice at all to Asyst that it intended to

relitigate the “communication means.” Id. at 6.

At the June 23 CMC, Jenoptik argued vehemently that it could not have sought

reconsideration or review of this Court’s ruling regarding the “communication means” in 2003,

given the procedural posture of the case at that time. This Court agrees that Jenoptik could not

have filed an appeal of its ruling regarding the “communication means” in 2003. See Nautilus

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 803 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 While the March 31 Order references Jenoptik’s failure to seek “reconsideration” of the

“communication means” aspect of the 2003 summary judgment ruling, the June 22 Order

erroneously references Jenoptik’s failure to seek “reconsideration or review.” See March 31

Order at 12; June 22 Order at 5. The Court apologizes for any confusion this error in the June 22

Order may have caused. 

3

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (EAI)

ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDERS ETC.

(JFLC2)

Group, Inc. v. ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 437 F.3d 1376, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding

that a party who prevails on noninfringement has no right to file a cross-appeal asserting

alternative ground for judgment in its favor). However, Jenoptik’s failure to file such an appeal

was not a basis for this Court’s ruling, which focused on Jenoptik’s failure to file a motion for

reconsideration and failure to provide adequate notice that the “communication means”

limitation was still in play.2 

The Court issued the summary judgment ruling at issue on October 9, 2003, and the

notice of appeal was not filed until more than one week later, on October 17, 2003. Jenoptik

could have filed a motion for leave to seek reconsideration of the “communication means” aspect

of the order before entry of judgment under Civil Local Rule 7-9, and could have sought

reconsideration after entry of judgment and before notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e). Although it was the prevailing party on the summary judgment motion,

Jenoptik was entitled to seek reconsideration of the Court’s determination that the IridNet System

meets the “communication means” limitation, because failure to meet this limitation would

provide an alternative basis for summary judgment of noninfringement. See North River Ins. Co.

v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (giving no indication of procedural

impropriety when prevailing party on summary judgment motion brought motion for

reconsideration under Rule 59(e), seeking to establish alternative basis for summary judgment

ruling, and subsequently appealed the denial of that motion for reconsideration).

Ultimately, however, Jenoptik’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration in 2003 is not

dispositive. As noted in the March 31 Order and the June 22 Order, the basis for the Court’s

ruling is its conviction that Asyst was denied fundamental notice that the “communication

means” was in play. Jenoptik’s assertion of substantive noninfringement arguments regarding

the “communication means” and other claim terms in connection with the most recent round of

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 803 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (EAI)

ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDERS ETC.

(JFLC2)

summary judgment motions came as a complete surprise to both Asyst and the Court, as Jenoptik

failed to give any indication of an intent to litigate the effect of such claim terms during the

preceding years.

B. Asyst’s Motion For Clarification

Asyst seeks clarification that the Court’s March 31 order granting summary judgment of

infringement extends not only to independent claim 2 of the ‘421 patent, but also to dependent

claims 11-14. While the Court stated its intention to grant summary judgment with respect to

both the independent and dependent claims, see March 31 Order at 2, Asyst notes correctly that

the final paragraph of the order references only independent claim 2, see id. at 14. Accordingly,

the Court HEREBY MODIFIES its March 31 Order to grant summary judgment of infringement

with respect to claims 2 and 11-14.

C. Jenoptik’s Motion For Clarification

Jenoptik seeks clarification that it may filed summary judgment motions with respect to

both invalidity and damages. Jenoptiks’ motion is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/5/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 803 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (EAI)

ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR ORDERS ETC.

(JFLC2)

Copies of this Order have been served upon the following persons:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Darryl M. Woo

Fenwick & West LLP

Silicon Valley Center

801 California Street

Mountain View, CA 94041-2008

Fax: (650) 938-5200

Counsel for Defendants:

Daniel T. Shvodian

James F. Valentine

David L. Bilsker

Howrey LLP

1950 University Avenue, 4th Floor

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 803 Filed 07/05/06 Page 5 of 5