Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000-86/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Island corporation,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Islands corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

California corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS AND

COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-2000 CW

(consolidated with

No. C 06-2929 CW)

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART O2 MICRO'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 802 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

O2 Micro International Limited requests leave to file a motion

for reconsideration of the Court's February 8, 2007 order denying

its motion for summary judgment on the issue of offensive

collateral estoppel and granting summary judgment in favor of

Defendants that O2 Micro had presented no evidence of damages. 

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 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). 

O2 Micro contends that reconsideration is proper. It requests

that, at a minimum, the Court issue a new order denying its motion

for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, but clarifying

that the issue is reserved for trial. O2 Micro argues that there

is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sumida adequately

represented MPS' interests in the Texas law suit and, therefore, it

should be allowed to complete its discovery on that issue and to

put on its evidence at trial. The Court's order could be read, not

merely to deny O2 Micro's motion for summary judgment based on

collateral estoppel, but also to find that MPS is not collaterally

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 802 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

estopped from litigating the validity of the asserted claims and

infringement of those claims. In its opposition, MPS stated that

the Court should find that collateral estoppel regarding the '722

patent is inappropriate, but it did not move for summary judgment

of no collateral estoppel. The Court grants O2 Micro leave to file

its motion for reconsideration of the Court's finding that MPS is

not collaterally estopped. 

O2 Micro further requests that the Court deny Defendants'

motion for summary judgment and reinstate the Bratic report, grant

it leave to serve a modified Bratic report, grant it leave to

reinstate the Dragun expert report that it previously withdrew or

allow it to prove its damages at trial without an expert witness. 

Defendants moved for summary judgment that O2 Micro had no evidence

of damages, arguing that Mr. Bratic's report could not support a

damages claim. In response, O2 Micro did not point to the

withdrawn Dragun expert or to any modifications that could be made

to the Bratic report, nor did it point to any other evidence of

damages in the record. Rather, it defended the Bratic report. 

Because that report was unreliable and inadmissible, O2 Micro did

not meet its burden to produce specific evidence showing that a

dispute exists. And O2 Micro points to no material facts or

dispositive legal arguments concerning its evidence of damages

which were presented to the Court and not considered. The Court

denies its motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

concerning damages. 

O2 Micro's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration (Docket No. 766) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 802 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

PART. O2 Micro may file its proposed motion for reconsideration.

Defendants are ordered to file their opposition to O2 Micro's

motion for reconsideration of the Court's finding that MPS is not

collaterally estopped, within two weeks from the date of this

order. O2 Micro may file a reply one week later. The matter will

be decided on the papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/15/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 802 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 4