Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-54/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,LTD., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 06-0162 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO

FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OF

JUNE 20, 2007

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave of Court to File Motion for

Reconsideration of Order of June 20, 2007,” filed June 29, 2007.

By order filed June 20, 2007, the Court referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C.

Spero two motions filed by plaintiff, specifically, plaintiff’s “Motion to Bar the Seoul

Defendants’ Obviousness Defense; and to Strike the Seoul Defendants’ Obviousness

Defense from the Expert Reports of Richard A. Flasck Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

26(A)(2),” and plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike the Supplemental Expert Report of Richard A.

Flasck Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(A)(2),” both filed June 15, 2007.

Plaintiff contends said two motions “will determine which issues may be decided on

summary judgment and will also determine whether or not certain evidence should be

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 378 Filed 07/03/07 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

1

Each party has filed a motion for summary judgment; both motions are scheduled

for hearing on July 27, 2007.

2

relied upon in ruling on those summary judgment motions.”1 Consequently, plaintiff argues,

the Court should reconsider its referral and hear both motions on July 27, 2007.

The Court finds no grounds upon which to reconsider its order of June 20, 2007. 

Each of the referred motions is wholly premised on defendants’ having violated their

discovery obligations, and, consequently, referral to Magistrate Spero, to whom all

discovery disputes have been referred, is appropriate. Further, the referred motions have

no bearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which does not address the issue

of obviousness or rely on the Supplemental Report of Richard A. Flasck. To the extent

defendants rely on said supplemental report in opposing plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, and to the extent it becomes necessary for the Court to consider said report in

order to rule on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the Court may, to such extent,

defer ruling on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pending Magistrate Judge Spero’s

ruling on the referred motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 378 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 2