Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—No. C-04-03843

RMW 

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 11/5/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEMRY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.,

PETER BESSELINK, MEMORY METALS

HOLLAND, B.V.,

Defendants.

No. C-04-03843 RMW

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Re Docket No. 640]

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

MEMRY CORPORATION and 

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Counterdefendants.

By its order dated April 8, 2005, the court dismissed KOT's sixth counterclaim for

declaration of invalidity and unenforceability of STC's issued patents that are allegedly based upon

Peter Besselink's Biflex technology. See Order Granting in Part and Denying In Part

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 948 Filed 11/05/07 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

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—No. C-04-03843

RMW 

MAG 2

Counterdefendants' Motion to Dismiss dated April 8, 2005, Docket No. 65. KOT seeks leave of this

court to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision based upon the Supreme Court's

opinion in Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007).

In MedImmune, the Supreme Court clarified that the "actual controversy" requirement of the

Declaratory Judgment Act demands only "that the dispute be definite and concrete, touching the

legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests; that it be real and substantial and admit of

specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising

what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts." Medlmmune, 127 S. Ct. at 771-72. The

Supreme Court noted that the Federal Circuit's "reasonable apprehension of imminent suit" test

conflicted with several cases in which the Supreme Court had found that a declaratory judgment

plaintiff had a justiciable controversy. Id. at 774 n. 11. Although this court mentioned the

"reasonable apprehension of suit," reliance on that test is neither necessary or required. This court

determined that KOT had shown by its assertion of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256 only that it may

have a concrete interest in the outcome of a determination of the validity or unenforceability rather

than a definite and concrete dispute. "[E]ven if KOT prevails on its section 256 claim, there is no

way of knowing that it will continue to challenge the patents' validity and enforceability. . . . Thus,

the mere fact that it would be convenient for KOT to know whether Besselink could potentially

become co-inventor of invalid and unenforceable patents does not create an 'actual controversy'

where otherwise there would be none." April 8, 2005 Order at 23-24. Even under Medimmune, the

court concludes that KOT's previously-dismissed counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity and

unenforceability does not present an "actual controversy" for this court and denies KOT's motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

DATED: 11/5/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 948 Filed 11/05/07 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

ORDER DENYING KENTUCKY OIL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—No. C-04-03843

RMW 

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Memry:

Andrew C. Ryan ryan@cantorcolburn.com 

William J. Cass wcass@cantorcolburn.com 

Thomas Mango tmango@cantorcolburn.com 

Benjamin J. Holl benjamin.holl@dbr.com 

Charles A. Reid, III charles.reid@dbr.com 

Counsel for STC:

Nancy J. Geenen ngeenen@foleylaw.com 

David B. Moyer dmoyer@foley.com 

Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.com 

Counsel for KOT:

Michael H. Bierman mbierman@luce.com 

Nicola A. Pisano npisano@luce.com

Jeffrey David Wexler jwexler@luce.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 11/5/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 948 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 3