Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00153/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00153-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

1

Defendants erroneously indicate in their moving papers that the motion to stay will be heard on March 6, 2007.

When counsel for Defendants telephoned chambers to secure a hearing date, the court informed counsel that the motion

to stay would be heard on March 16, 2007, which, unlike a March 6 hearing date, would allow for the 28-day briefing

schedule as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.1. 

- 1 - 06cv0153

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLTECH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06 CV 0153 JM (RBB) 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

SHORTEN TIME FOR OPPOSITION

AND REPLY ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION

vs.

CENZONE TECH, INC. and JUNG FU WU.

Defendants.

CENZONE TECH, INC., and JUNG FU WU,

Counterclaimants,

vs.

ALLTECH, INC.,

Counterdefendant.

This is a patent infringement case. Pending before the court is Defendants’ Ex Parte

Application to Shorten Time for Opposition and Reply on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Litigation, filed

February 13, 2007. See Docket No. 109. Plaintiff opposes the application. Also on February 13,

2007, Defendants filed its noticed motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of its January 5,

2007 application to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for a reexamination of the patent at

issue in this case. Defendants’ motion to stay is set to be heard on March 16, 2007.1

 In their Ex Parte

Case 3:06-cv-00153-JM-RBB Document 112 Filed 02/16/07 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 - 06cv0153

Application, Defendants request that the motion to stay be heard on February 27, 2007. See Docket

No. 110. It is undisputed that the PTO has not yet granted or denied Defendants’ request for

reexamination. 

Defendants argue an order shortening time is warranted because certain discovery, which is

now being conducted with a view toward meeting the March 9, 2007 discovery cut-off, may become

unnecessary should the PTO grant the reexamination request and narrow or invalidate any of the

patent claims at issue. The court disagrees. Defendants filed their request for PTO reexamination on

January 5, 2007 and yet they waited until now, over five weeks later, to file their motion to stay; this

undermines Defendants’ argument that requiring them to meet their current discovery obligations in

light of the reexamination request would create an undue cost burden on Defendants. Moreover, if

necessary the court can reopen discovery after the motion to stay is heard on March 16, 2007.

Therefore, Defendants’ application is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 16, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-00153-JM-RBB Document 112 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2