Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-95/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 OBJECTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE: PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO BAR OBVIOUSNESS

DEFENSE; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO BAR OBVIOUSNESS

DEFENSE; GRANTING DEFERRED

PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is defendants’ “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation Re Plaintiff’s Motion to Bar Obviousness Defense,” filed August 28,

2007.

Having fully reviewed the matter, the Court hereby DENIES the objection, for the

reason defendants have failed to show the subject order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (providing district court may reconsider magistrate’s

order where it has been shown to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law). Alternatively,

considering the matter de novo, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation,

and, accordingly, GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to bar defendants’ obviousness defense.. See

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing, as to “proposed recommendation,” district court shall “make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made”).

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 723 Filed 08/31/07 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

In light of the above ruling, the deferred portion of plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, by which plaintiff seeks judgment in its favor on the issue of obviousness, is

hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 723 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 2