Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000-66/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, CROSSCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-2000 CW

(consolidated with

No. C 06-2929 CW)

ORDER DENYING

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO

FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

Defendants Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPS) and Michael

Hsing request leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

Court's October 3, 2006 Order Denying MPS and Hsing's Motion to

Dismiss Fourth Count of O2 Micro's Third Amended Complaint for Lack

of Jurisdiction. 

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states as follows: "No party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 655 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

MPS and Hsing argue that reconsideration is proper under Civil

Local Rule 7-9(b)(2). They contend that, since the Court's order,

a new material fact has emerged: pursuant to the parties'

stipulation, the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff O2 Micro

International Limited's allegations that MPS and Hsing infringed O2

Micro's U.S. Patent No. 6,804,129 (the '129 patent). The parties'

stipulation did not address whether the dismissal would have any

effect on jurisdiction or on the Court's October 3, 2006 order.

In its order, the Court determined it had jurisdiction over O2

Micro's State law claim against MPS and Hsing based on O2 Micro's

patent claim against them. The Court's finding of jurisdiction,

however, was also based on considerations of judicial economy,

convenience and fairness to litigants. Those considerations remain

present. 

Dismissal of supplemental State law claims is not

automatically required on dismissal of all federal claims. 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The district court retains power to hear a

supplemental State law claim after dismissal of all federal claims,

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 655 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 3
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

as long as the federal claims were not dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Herman Family Revocable Trust v.

Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, O2 Micro's

claim that MPS and Hsing infringed the '129 patent was not

dismissed for lack of subject matter and its dismissal, pursuant to

the parties' stipulation, is not a new material fact.

Therefore, MPS and Hsing's request for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration (Docket No. 627) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/20/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 655 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 3