Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation; ATMEL SWITZERLAND, a

corporation; ATMEL FRANCE, a

corporation; ATMEL SARL, a

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AUTHENTEC, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-2138 CW

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFFS'

OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LAPORTE'S ORDERS ON

DEFENDANT'S MOTION

TO MODIFY THE

DESIGNATIONS OF

PLAINTIFF'S HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiffs have filed an objection to and request for de novo

review of Magistrate Judge Laporte's ruling on Defendant

Authentec's motion to modify the designations of Plaintiffs' highly

confidential documents. Defendant opposes the motion.

Although Plaintiffs request de novo review of Judge Laporte's

order, de novo review is only available for the review of a

magistrate judge's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

with regard to a dispositive motion or prisoner petition. 28

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 458 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, the motion

decided by Judge Laporte was a pretrial matter that does not fall

within any of the exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

The Court may only reconsider this type of order where it has been

shown that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28

U.S.C. § 636(1)(b)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City &

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus,

this Court must affirm Judge Laporte unless "it is left with the

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." 

Burdick v. Commissioner, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). The

reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of

the deciding court. Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241.

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the

Court finds that Judge Laporte's rulings were not clearly erroneous

or contrary to law. Plaintiffs' motion is therefore DENIED (Docket

No. 280).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/18/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

cc: EDL

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 458 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2