Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00885/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00885-2/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

BOOKHAM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNAXIS BALZERS AG and UNAXIS

BALZERS LTD.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-0885 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS; VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 25)

Before the Court is the motion filed August 25, 2006 by defendants Unaxis Balzers

AG and Unaxis Balzers Ltd. (jointly, “Unaxis”) to dismiss the instant action for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Bookham, Inc. (“Bookham”) has filed opposition; Unaxis

has filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil

L.R. 7-1(b), and hereby VACATES the October 6, 2006 hearing.

For the reasons set forth in Unaxis’s motion and reply, Bookham has not

demonstrated an objectively reasonable apprehension that it, or any of its customers, face

an infringement suit by Unaxis. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Bookham’s

claim for declaratory relief. See, e.g., Phillips Plastics Corp. v. Kato Hatsujou Kabushiki

Kaisha, 57 F.3d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding jurisdiction over declaratory relief

claim lacking in absence of “action by the patent holder sufficient to create an objectively

Case 3:06-cv-00885-MMC Document 39 Filed 09/25/06 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

reasonable apprehension that suit will be brought against the declaratory plaintiff”);

Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc., 846 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

(describing test for declaratory relief jurisdiction as requiring “apprehension that plaintiff or

its customers face an infringement suit or threat of one”) (internal quotation, citation, and

emphases omitted).

Assuming, arguendo, the Court has jurisdiction over the declaratory relief claim, the

Court declines to exercise such jurisdiction. The parties were engaged in licensing

negotiations prior to Bookham’s filing of the instant action, and thereafter, shortly before the

filing of the instant motion, Bookham sent Unaxis a letter stating “[t]here may be mutual

benefit . . . in discussing alternative commercial arrangements instead of resolving the

issue through the courts.” (See Haggerty Decl. Ex. 11.) In light of the parties’ ongoing

licensing negotiations, entertaining the instant action for declaratory relief “would be

inconsistent with the sound policy of promoting extrajudicial dispute resolution, and

conservation of judicial resources.” See EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp., 89 F.3d 807 (Fed.

Cir. 1996) (noting “court may take into account the pendency of serious negotiations to sell

or license a patent in determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory

judgment action”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Bookham has not alleged an independent basis for jurisdiction over its state law

claims, and has not responded to Unaxis’s argument that the Court should decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over said claims. Where the Court has dismissed all

claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “[I]n the

usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors

to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine -- judicial economy, convenience,

fairness, and comity -- will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining

state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). 

Here, where the Court has issued no rulings on the merits of any of Bookham’s claims and

the action is at a very early stage, there is no reason for the Court to retain supplemental

Case 3:06-cv-00885-MMC Document 39 Filed 09/25/06 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

jurisdiction over Bookham’s state law claims.

Accordingly, Unaxis’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00885-MMC Document 39 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 3