Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-71/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELERITY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

 v.

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

AND SERVICE, INC.

Defendant/Counterclaimant

and

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant /

No. C-05-4374 MMC

(Consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc. and Ultra

Clean Holdings, Inc.’s (collectively, “Ultra Clean”) “Motion to Stay Injunction Pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62,” filed December 11, 2007. Celerity, Inc. (“Celerity”) has filed opposition,

to which Ultra Clean has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of

and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 25, 2008, and rules as follows:

1. By separate orders filed concurrently herewith, the Court has denied Ultra

Clean’s motions for relief under Rules 50 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and, in so doing, has considered the grounds Ultra Clean contends it will raise on appeal. 

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 610 Filed 01/25/08 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 1

To date, Ultra Clean has not filed an appeal.

2

For the reasons stated by the Court in its orders denying Ultra Clean’s motions pursuant to

Rules 50 and 59, and for the reasons stated by Celerity in opposition to the instant motion,

the Court finds Ultra Clean has failed to make a “strong showing that [it] is likely to

succeed” on the merits of any appeal it may file from the judgment.1

 See Hilton v.

Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (setting forth factors district court considers when

determining whether stay of judgment pending appeal is warranted).

2. For the reasons stated by Celerity, the Court finds the language of the injunction

is not vague; Ultra Clean’s asserted uncertainty with respect to the effect U.S. Patent

6,435,215 (“‘215 Patent”) will have on Ultra Clean’s product development is not a function

of the language of the injunction. Moreover, Ultra Clean fails to provide any basis for its

assertion that, in the absence of a stay, Celerity is likely to make false statements to the

public about the scope of the injunction. Finally, Ultra Clean does not contend it will

experience any economic hardship if it ceases to sell the Predator; indeed, in opposing

Celerity’s motion for entry of a permanent injunction, Ultra Clean asserted that an injunction

was unnecessary because Ultra Clean “has or will soon cease” to sell the Predator. (See

Kobialka Decl., filed December 11, 2007. Ex. 5 at 7:24-25.) Accordingly, the Court finds

Ultra Clean has failed to show it will be “irreparably injured absent a stay.” See Hilton, 481

U.S. at 776.

3. Ultra Clean’s argument that Celerity’s “concerns” over continued infringement

would be “mitigated” by requiring Ultra Clean to pay royalties on infringing sales is

unpersuasive. In particular, for the reasons stated by Celerity, payment of a royalty would

not adequately address Celerity’s loss of market share and price erosion likely to result

from Ultra Clean’s sale of the Predator pending appeal. Accordingly, the Court finds Ultra

Clean has failed to show a stay will not “substantially injure” Celerity. See id.

4. Ultra Clean offers no evidence, whether in the form of an opinion by an

economist or otherwise, to support its argument that, in the absence of a stay, consumers

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 610 Filed 01/25/08 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

will be forced to pay higher prices for products produced by semiconductor manufacturers. 

Ultra Clean similarly provides no support for its additional argument that the public interest

is served by the Court’s staying the injunction to afford the Patent and Trademark Office

(“PTO”) the opportunity to determine whether the ‘215 Patent is invalid; the Court is not

persuaded that the public has an interest in having the issue of a patent’s validity relitigated

before the PTO after such issue has been fully litigated and tried to a jury. Accordingly, the

Court finds Ultra Clean has failed to show the “public interest” would be served by staying

enforcement of the injunction. See id.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to stay is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 610 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3