Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-50/pdf.json

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

CELERITY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

 v.

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

AND SERVICE, INC.

Defendant/Counterclaimant

and

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant /

No. C-05-4374 MMC

(Consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER RE: CELERITY, INC.’S MOTION

IN LIMINE NO. 1

At the pretrial conference conducted May 22, 2007, the Court granted in part, denied

in part, and in part deferred ruling on Celerity, Inc.’s (“Celerity”) “Motion in Limine No. 1 to

Exclude Certain Proffered Testimony from UCT’s Expert Noninfringement Witness, Nelson

Urdaneta,” and provided the parties with the opportunity to submit supplemental filings in

connection therewith. Having received and reviewed the parties’ supplemental filings, the

Court rules as follows.

In its supplemental filing, Celerity requests that the Court preclude Nelson Urdaneta

(“Urdaneta”) from “testify[ing] regarding the ‘two main approaches’ and ‘design intent’ of

Celerity and UCT,” (see Celerity’s Reply in Support of Celerity’s Mot. in Limine No. 1, filed

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 424 Filed 06/01/07 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

2

May 25, 2007, at 13:4-5), from “testify[ing] as to the intent of Celerity’s inventors,” (see id.

at 13:7), from “compar[ing] the Predator to any commercial product or commercial

embodiment of Celerity’s patents,” (see id. at 13:9-10), and from “defin[ing] his point of

comparison as anything other than the Court’s construction of the claims-in-suit,” (see id. at

13:10-12).

With respect to the issue of “two main approaches,” the Court previously ruled that

Urdaneta could not testify that Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc.’s (“UCT”)

product was “better” than the claimed inventions, but could testify as to what he believed

were differences between how UCT’s product and the claimed inventions address

problems in the field. (See Sun Decl., filed May 29, 2007, Ex. 1 at 8:14 - 9:8.) Celerity, in

its supplemental filing, does not reference the Court’s prior order. To the extent Celerity is

implicitly requesting reconsideration of such order, Celerity fails to show any cognizable

basis for reconsideration exists, and, accordingly, such request is DENIED.

With respect to “design intent,” the Court previously ruled that the issue of UCT’s

subjective intent was irrelevant. (See id. Ex. 1 at 8:11.) To the extent the motion concerns

the “design intent” of Celerity and the inventors, UCT represents it does not intend to elicit

such testimony and, good cause appearing from Celerity’s reply, Celerity’s motion is

GRANTED.

Finally, with respect to Urdaneta’s comparing the accused device to any of Celerity’s

products, as opposed to comparing the accused device to the claims, the Court previously

ruled in favor of Celerity, (see id. Ex. 1 at 15:11-12); additionally, UCT states it will not elicit

such testimony. In any event, Celerity’s motion is GRANTED, to the extent Celerity seeks

to preclude Urdaneta from comparing the accused device to Celerity’s products.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 424 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 2