Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 SYNAPTICS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-01839 CRB

ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS

AND MARCH 7, 2008 HEARING

Now pending before the Court are Elantech’s motion for summary judgment,

Elantech’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Synaptics’ motion for summary judgment

regarding the tapping claims, Synaptics’ motion for summary judgment regarding the zone

claims, and Synaptics’ motion to strike. 

After reviewing the submissions in connection with Synaptics’ motions for partial

summary judgment, the Court concludes that additional briefing is required. Accordingly,

the Court will issue a separate order identifying the additional issues to be briefed and a

briefing schedule. 

Synaptics’ motion to strike is denied. Elantech agrees with Synaptics that its new

source code is not at issue on Synaptics’ motions for partial summary judgment and the

Court does not intend to make any rulings with respect to such code in connection with the

currently pending summary judgment motions.

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 262 Filed 03/04/08 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\March7hearing\orderremarch7hearing.wpd 2

At oral argument on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. the parties are directed to

focus their arguments on the following questions related to the motion for preliminary

injunction:

1. What irreparable harm will Elantech suffer if Synaptics is not preliminarily

enjoined? The parties should identify the evidence in the record that supports their

respective positions.

2. Whether any court has denied a motion for preliminary injunction in a patent

case after finding as a matter of law that a patent is infringed and there is no substantial

question as to its validity and enforceability?

The Court does not require any argument on the other issues raised by the motion for

a preliminary injunction or Elantech’s motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 262 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2