Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-04925/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-04925-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MITSUBISHI MATERIALS SILICON

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 01-4925 SBA

(Related to Case No. C 05-2133)

ORDER

[Docket No. 554]

On December 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants' Invalidity

Defense and a Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants for Active Inducement of Infringement

Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(B). Also on December 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Order

Shortening Time for Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants' Invalidity

Defense and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants for Active Inducement of

Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(B) ("Ex Parte Application") [Docket No. 554]. In the Ex Parte

Application, Plaintiff requests that the Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants' Invalidity Defense

and the Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants for Active Inducement of Infringement Under 35

U.S.C. § 271(B) be setfor a January 10, 2006 hearing, to coincide with the hearing on certain motions already

filed by Defendants in the above-captioned case, including Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of

Non-Infringement and Invalidity of US Patent No. 5,919,302. 

On December 7, 2005, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application. In the

Opposition, Defendants note that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application is in direct violationofthisCourt's prior orders

regardingthe schedulingofthis case. Defendants also point out that Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with

Case 4:01-cv-04925-SBA Document 559 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

any reason why it did not provide prior notice to the Court or to Defendants that it intended to file these

motions for summary judgment.

The Court agrees with Defendants that the timing of Plaintiff's summary judgment motions is

questionable. Indeed, the Court is very troubled by the fact that Plaintiff has not provided any explanation as

to why it waited until December 6, 2005 to file these motions. However, the Court finds that the interests of

fairness are not served by granting Defendants' request to strike the summary judgment motions. The Court

also finds that the interests of judicial economy favor a combined hearing on all of the pending motions. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application [DocketNo. 554] is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants' Invalidity Defense and Plaintiff's Motion for

SummaryJudgment Against Defendants for Active Inducement ofInfringementUnder 35 U.S.C.§ 271(B)shall

be heard on January 10, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. The Court may, in its discretion, adjudicate the motions without

a hearing, in which case the clerk will notify the parties that no appearance is necessary. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the following briefing schedule applies:

1. Defendants shall file their oppositions to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Against Defendants' Invalidity Defense and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Against Defendants for Active Inducement ofInfringementUnder 35 U.S.C. § 271(B)

on or before December 19, 2005.

2. Plaintiff shall file its reply briefs, if any, on or before December 23, 2005. 

IT IS FURTHERORDERED THATthe parties mayNOT file any further motions in this case and may

NOT modify the briefing schedule set forth herein without seeking prior leave of Court. Further, except as

expressly set forth herein, this Order does not alter any other deadlines previously set by this Court. 

Additionally, Plaintiffis hereby admonished for failing to comply with this Court's prior orders and the

Court's standing orders. Such conduct is not condoned by this Court and any future violations of the Court's

orders WILL result in an order to show cause why sanctions should not issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Case 4:01-cv-04925-SBA Document 559 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: 12/7/05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-04925-SBA Document 559 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 3