Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02133/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02133-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MITSUBISHI MATERIALS SILICON

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

/

No. C 01-4925 SBA

(Related to Case No. C 05-2133)

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 481, 482, 483]

On December 14, 2001, Plaintiff MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. filed a complaint against

Defendants alleging that Defendants directly infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,919,302 ("the '302 patent") and

induced infringement of the patent under 25 U.S.C. § 271(b). 

On March 16, 2004, this Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment of zero

damages and specifically found that Defendants were not liable for either direct infringement or

inducement of infringement. Plaintiff subsequently appealed. 

On August 22, 2005, the Federal Circuit issued its decision on the appeal and held that this Court

did not err when in granted summary judgment on the issue of direct infringement. However, the

Federal Circuit held that this Court did err when it granted summary judgment with respect to

inducement of infringement because it found that there were genuine issues of material fact with respect

to whether SUMCO induced infringement of the '302 patent on the part of Samsung Austin.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings. 

On September 22, 2005, the parties participated in a Case Management Conference. The Court

issued its Pretrial Scheduling Order ("Pretrial Order") on September 26, 2005. In the Pretrial Order, the

Court scheduled the case for a March 13, 2006 trial. Additionally, the motion hearing cutoff date was

scheduled for January 24, 2006.

On October 19, 2005, Defendants re-noticed for hearing the following motions Defendants

Case 4:05-cv-02133-SBA Document 88 Filed 11/10/05 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

previously filed in December 2003 and April 2004: (a) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of

Non-Infringement and Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,919,302; (b) Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment of Zero Damages; and (c) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Reports and Testimony of

Plaintiff's Expert Luciano Mule'Stagno and to Preclude Plaintiff's Infringement Claims. The motions

were noticed for a January 10, 2006 hearing.

On October 20, 2005, Defendants filed an Administrative Motion to Change Trial Date. In the

Administrative Motion, Defendants request a continuation of the trial date for sixty to ninety days

because it "appears likely or possible that the Court may not decide [Defendants'] motions in time to

avoid costly pretrial preparation and even trial." Defendants also indicate that the "[l]imited discovery

is underway and will end by November 22, 2005" regarding the issues raised in Defendants' motions.

Defendants further state that the motions must be heard after discovery is complete. 

On October 25, 2005, Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendant's Administrative Motion. In the

opposition, Plaintiff objects to Defendants' attempt to "re-notice" certain motions that this Court has

already ruled on. Plaintiff also states that a continuation of the trial date is unnecessary.

Having considered Defendants' Administrative Motion, and the reasons set forth therein, the

Court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated the existence of good cause warranting a continuance

of the March 13, 2006 trial date. This Court specifically discussed scheduling issues with the parties

at the September 22, 2005 Case Management Conference and, based on that discussion, determined that

the case could be effectively resolved with a January 24, 2006 hearing cutoff date and a March 13, 2006

trial. Defendants have not identified a single event that has occurred since the September 22, 2005 Case

Management Conference that would alter this Court's conclusion that the dates set forth in the current

Pretrial Order are reasonable and feasible. Further, the Court finds that Defendants' timing concerns

regarding the Court's ability to resolve the pending motions by the earliest possible date is best

addressed by a modification of the parties' briefing schedule, not a continuance of the trial date.

Additionally, the Court notes that, due to the procedural posture of this case, Defendants' attempt

to merely "re-notice" certain motions that were fully briefed and adjudicated over one year ago

unnecessarily creates confusion and ambiguity concerning the issues and papers that are properly before

the Court.

Case 4:05-cv-02133-SBA Document 88 Filed 11/10/05 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

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Administrative Motion to Change Trial Date

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants' "Re-Notice" of Defendants' Motion for

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,919,302, Defendants' "ReNotice" of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Zero Damages, and Defendants' "Re-Notice"

of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Luciano

Mule'Stagno and to Preclude Plaintiff's Infringement Claims [Docket Nos. 481, 482, 483] are

STRICKEN. To the extent that Defendants wish to reassert any of these motions, Defendants are hereby

granted leave to file new motions, with the appropriate supporting memoranda and declarations, on or

before November 4, 2005. The motions shall be noticed for a January 10, 2006 hearing date. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall file its oppositions to Defendants' motions

on or before December 6, 2005 and Defendants shall file their reply briefs, if any, on or before

December 13, 2005. Thereafter, the motions will be taken under submission. The Court may, in its

discretion, adjudicate the motions without a hearing. If the Court determines that a hearing on any of

the motions is necessary, the Court will keep the January 10, 2006 hearing on calendar and will contact

the parties no later than January 5, 2006 to inform them that they will be required to appear at the

January 10, 2006 hearing. The parties may not alter the briefing schedule set forth herein without prior

leave of Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties shall specifically state that this case is related

to Case No. C 05-2133 in the caption of all documents filed with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/27/05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02133-SBA Document 88 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 3