Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000-87/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Island corporation,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Islands corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

California corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS AND

COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-2000 CW

(consolidated with

No. C 06-2929 CW)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF

ORDER ON CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 803 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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 2

Defendants Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Advanced

Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation Limited, ASUSTeK Computer,

Inc. and Compal Electronics, Inc. move for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration of this Court's order on claim construction. 

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states as follows: "No party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave

of Court to file the motion." A request for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented

to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in

the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material

facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Defendants contend that reconsideration is proper under Civil

Local Rule 7-9(b)(2). They note that, following the parties'

briefing and the Court's hearing on claim construction, the Patent

and Trademark Office rejected as unpatentable all asserted claims

of O2 Micro's U.S. Patent No. 6,396,722 containing the "only if"

and "first state/second state" limitations. Based on these new

facts, Defendants request that the Court reconsider its decision to

construe those two terms as they were previously construed by this

Court and Judge Ward. They ask the Court to adopt their claim

construction instead. 

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 803 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

New material facts have emerged and, therefore, the Court

GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Order on Claim Construction and for Further

Construction in View of the New Intrinsic Evidence Submitted in

Pending Reexamination Proceedings (Docket No. 764). Defendants may

file their proposed motion for reconsideration. O2 Micro is

ordered to file its opposition to Defendants' motion for

reconsideration, within one week from the date of this order. 

Defendants may file a reply three days later. The matter will be

decided on the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/15/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 803 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 3