Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-52/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 GRANTING CELERITY, INC.’S

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10

At the pretrial conference conducted May 22, 2007, the Court deferred ruling on

Celerity, Inc.’s (“Celerity”) “Motion in Limine No. 10 to Exclude Evidence or Argument That

Celerity’s Claims Are Limited to Solid Rectangular Blocks,” until after the Court had

construed “common surface.” Because the Court, by separate order filed concurrently

herewith, has construed “common surface,” the Court now considers Celerity’s Motion in

Limine No. 10.

Celerity seeks to preclude Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc.’s

(“UCT”) experts from opining that the claimed manifold must be a solid, rectangular block.

In opposition, UCT states it does not intend to offer testimony that the manifold must

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 426 Filed 06/01/07 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

be rectangular. Consequently, Celerity’s motion is, to that extent, unopposed.

UCT states, however, that it intends to elicit expert testimony that the manifold is a

solid block. UCT observes that the asserted claims include a limitation that the manifold

have an inlet and outlet accessing a “common surface,” and states that its experts plan to

testify that a manifold with inlets and outlets accessing a common surface “must be a solid

block.” (See UCT’s Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. in Limine No. 10, filed May 15, 2007, at 2:11-12.) 

UCT argues “the claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to require the manifold or

manifold block to be a solid block.” (See id. at 3:7-9.) As discussed at the pretrial

conference, the “claim limitations” to which UCT refers are the limitations that use the term

“common surface.”

By separate order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has construed “common

surface” as “the same surface, which surface may be either continuous or divided.” Given

such construction, the common surface of the manifold on which the inlet and outlet are

located can be a divided surface, and, consequently, an expert opinion that the manifold

must be a solid block would be inconsistent with the Court’s construction order.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 426 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 2