Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation; ATMEL SWITZERLAND, a

corporation; ATMEL FRANCE, a

corporation; ATMEL SARL, a

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AUTHENTEC, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-2138 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OR

FOR CERTIFICATION

FOR INTERLOCUTORY

APPEAL

Defendant Authentec, Inc. moves for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the Court's June 11, 2007 order denying its

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. In the

alternative, Defendant seeks certification of the of the issue for

interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

I. Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration

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

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 84 Filed 06/29/07 Page 1 of 5
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

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). 

Defendant argues that "upon re-reviewing the record" it

discovered information that undermines Plaintiffs' arguments

regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant

also cites the underlying declarations in Steelcase v. Smart

Technologies Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 714 (W.D. Mich. 2004), which the

Court cited in denying Defendant's motion. However, neither of

these sources of information warrants leave to file a motion for

reconsideration under Rule 7-9. The information in the record was

clearly available to Defendant at the time it filed its motion to

dismiss and Plaintiffs relied upon Steelcase in their opposition to

Defendant's motion. Defendant does not provide any reason that it

was not able to obtain the Steelcase declarations prior to filing

its reply brief. 

Defendant also argues that it need not seek leave to file a

motion for reconsideration because it alleges that the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction and objections to subject matter

jurisdiction may not be waived. See Cripps v. Life Ins. Co., 980

F.2d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 1992). Out of an abundance of caution,

the Court considers the merits of Defendant's motion for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration and finds that its arguments are

unavailing. Defendant argues that the evidence demonstrates that

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 84 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 5
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

there was at least one other non-exclusive licensee to the '114

patent and therefore Atmel Corporation could not have been

considered an exclusive licensee. However, the document Defendant

cites in support of that argument is dated January, 2000. Atmel

Corporation did not file its complaint until March, 2006. Further,

in a document dated May, 2006, Atmel Grenoble, the patentee,

warranted that it had "not granted any licenses or other rights" to

the '114 patent. DeMory Declaration in Support of Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss at 5. Further, the fact that Plaintiffs'

situation in this case was not factually identical to that of the

plaintiffs in Steelcase does not undermine the Court's overall

analysis. 

Thus, the Court denies Defendant's motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration.

II. Interlocutory Appeal 

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the district court may

certify appeal of an interlocutory order if (1) the order involves

a controlling question of law, (2) appealing the order may

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, and

(3) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion as to the

question of law. The Court should construe the requirements for

certification strictly, and grant a motion for certification only

when exceptional circumstances warrant such action. Coopers &

Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978). 

Defendant argues that there is a substantial ground for

difference of opinion as to the Court's conclusion that Atmel

Corporation had constitutional standing at the inception of the

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 84 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 5
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 4

case because the Federal Circuit has not yet held that a parent

company acting as Atmel Corporation did under the same

circumstances could be considered an exclusive licensee. While the

lack of Federal Circuit authority demonstrates that this point of

law is both arguable and new, Defendant does not provide any cases

that contradict the decision that are directly on point. 

Defendant also argues that interlocutory appeal is appropriate

because there is a possibility that the case might be dismissed on

appeal due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, this

is true of any case in which subject matter jurisdiction is

contested. Interlocutory decisions not to dismiss a case for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction are "not per se reviewable." Things

Remembered v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 132 n.1 (1995) (Ginsburg, J.,

concurring). Because "every federal court, whether trial or

appellate, is obliged to notice want of subject-matter jurisdiction

on its own motion," the question will be left "open for eventual

appellate consideration." Id. 

The Court finds that there are no extraordinary circumstances

warranting certification for interlocutory appeal in this case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration or for certification

for interlocutory appeal (Docket No. 79). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/29/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 84 Filed 06/29/07 Page 4 of 5
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 5

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 84 Filed 06/29/07 Page 5 of 5