Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561-10/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-03561 PJH 

v. ORDER ON MOTIONS

 SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

The court heard several motions in the above case on January 17, 2007. As the

court noted on the record, although the parties technically filed only three motions, there

actually appeared to be six motions before the court, including: (1) Rackable’s motion to

dismiss for lack of case or controversy; (2) Supermicro’s motion for summary adjudication;

(3) Supermicro’s motion for attorneys fees and/or sanctions (raised for the first time in its

opposition to Rackable’s motion to dismiss); (4) Supermicro’s motion for summary

adjudication and/or construction of ‘366 patent claim 39; (5) Rackable’s motion for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s Markman order (raised for the first time in its

opposition to Supermicro’s motion for summary adjudication); and (6) Supermicro’s motion

for leave to amend its preliminary invalidity contentions. Defendant Supermicro appeared

through its counsel, Richard Yankwich, of DLA Piper US LLP, and plaintiff appeared

through its counsel, Eric Lamison, of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. 

Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motions and carefully

considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and for the reasons stated on

the record, the court rules as follows with respect to the above motions.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 157 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 3
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

I. Rackable’s Motion to Dismiss and Supermicro’s Motion for Summary

Adjudication

For the reasons stated on the record, Rackable’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART, and Supermicro’s motion for summary adjudication is

DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to submit a stipulated proposed order reflecting the

court’s ruling on these motions no later than Wednesday, January 31, 2007. That order

should incorporate the parties’ existing stipulation as to invalidity of the ‘408 patent in its

entirety and the ‘366 patent in part.

As for the remaining ‘366 patent claims not covered by the existing stipulation, the

court declines to exercise its discretion to stay such claims pending an appeal of the court’s

claim construction order. That portion of the case will proceed in accordance with the local

rules and deadlines currently in effect.

II. Supermicro’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and/or Sanctions

Supermicro suggested to the court at the hearing that it did not intend to bring a

motion per se. That was not the court’s reading of the papers, and for the reasons stated

on the record, to the extent Supermicro brought such a motion, it is DENIED for failure to

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Civil L.R. 7-8, and for lack of a sufficient

showing of exceptional circumstances under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

III. ‘366 Patent Claim 39

 Supermicro’s motion for summary adjudication requesting that the court construe

this unasserted claim is DENIED.

IV. Rackable’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration

regarding the Court’s Markman Proceedings and/or to Reopen the 

Markman Proceedings

The court DENIES the motion for the reasons stated on the record.

V. Supermicro’s Motion to Amend its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions

For the reasons stated on the record, the court finds that this motion presents a

close call. However, upon considering Supermicro’s strategic decision not to commission

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 157 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

certain searches for prior art until later in the case and the resulting prejudice to Rackable

given the impending deadlines in this case, the court DENIES Supermicro’s motion with the

exception of: 1) contentions in need of amendment in light of the court’s claim construction

order, including those now rendered unnecessary by the parties’ stipulation, and 2) those

contentions regarding the Cobalt 1 data sheets. See Patent L.R. 3-7; O2 Micro

International Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1359-1367 (Fed. Cir.

2006). 

VI. Sealing Requests

The parties are reminded that courtesy chambers copies of motion papers and/or

declarations and exhibits, including those subject to a sealing request, must be unredacted

versions. In order to fully consider the parties’ arguments and supporting documents filed

in connection with any motions, the court must have the entire unredacted version of those

documents before it. 

As for the instant sealing requests, the court GRANTS Supermicro’s request to file

portions of its reply to its motion to amend the preliminary invalidity contentions and exhibits

to the Yamashita declaration under seal.

However, the parties’ request to seal exhibits accompanying Rackable’s filings

based on their inclusion of Supermicro’s confidential information is DENIED for failure to

comply with Civil L.R. 79-5. Supermicro filed a declaration in response to Rackable’s

sealing request, asserting that Rackable was mistaken regarding the documents to be filed

under seal. However, neither party submitted either the required redacted or unredacted

versions of the documents in accordance with Supermicro’s response. A revised request

and proposed order for sealing must be filed no later than January 31, 2007.

Dated: January 18, 2007

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 157 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 3