Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717-62/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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION —No. C-06-03717 RMW

CCL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 5/25/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES,

AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED and

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY

and IGT,

Defendants.

No. C-06-03717 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION

[Re Docket No. 686]

Plaintiffs Aristocrat Technologies, et al. (collectively "Aristocrat") have requested the court's

permission to withdraw its motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") without

prejudice. The court has discretion to allow a party to withdraw a motion. See Civ. L. R. 7-7(e) (if

request to withdraw is not made within 7 days of service of an opposition, "the Court may proceed to

decide the motion") (emphasis added). 

Aristocrat originally sought leave to add a new party and new claims of patent infringement

based on a recently issued patent in its SAC. Defendants International Game Technology and IGT

(collectively "IGT") oppose Aristocrat's motion for leave to amend, alleging prejudice, undue delay,

bad faith, futility, and lack of judicial economy. In opposing the motion, IGT argued that: (1)

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 849 Filed 05/25/10 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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION —No. C-06-03717 RMW

CCL 2

Aristocrat could request that discovery in this case be used in future litigation between the parties,

and (2) if IGT prevails in its motion for summary judgment on the existing claims, there would be

no need for trial in this case, and thus "no efficiency [] would result from going to trial on a single

patent based on discovery directed entirely at two other patents that are no longer part of the case." 

Dkt. No. 732 at 20-21. 

On May 13, 2010, the court granted IGT's motion for summary judgment on the existing

claims. Consequently, the issues that remain in dispute are unique to the new claims that Aristocrat

originally sought to add in a SAC. These issues may take some time to resolve, and whether

Aristocrat has viable claims may depend on what action the Patent and Trademark Office takes or

declines to take. As IGT pointed out in its opposition to Aristocrat's motion seeking leave to amend,

no judicial economy would be gained from determining issues unique to the new claims when

summary judgment has already been granted on the existing claims. In fact, allowing Aristocrat to

bring new claims in a separate complaint, if it wishes to do so, would likely simplify the issues for

adjudication. There does not appear to be any good reason for delaying an appeal of the issues that

dispose of the case as it now exists, if Aristocrat wishes to do so. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Aristocrat's request to withdraw its motion for

leave to file a SAC without prejudice to asserting the new claims in a separate complaint, if it wishes

to do so. 

 

DATED: 5/25/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 849 Filed 05/25/10 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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION —No. C-06-03717 RMW

CCL 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Anthony R. de Alcaeus adealcuaz@mwe.com 

Terrence Patrick McMahon tmcmahon@mwe.com

Jeremy Todd Elman jelman@mwe.com 

Robert J. Blanch , Jr. rblanch@mwe.com

Phillip C. Ducker pducker@mwe.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Jeffrey Stewart Love jeffrey.love@klarquist.com

Daniel Justin Weinberg dweinberg@orrick.com 

Gabriel M. Ramsey gramsey@orrick.com

Garth Alan Winn garth.winn@klarquist.com

Kristin L. Cleveland kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com

Laura Kieran Kieckhefer kkieckhefer@orrick.com 

Michael J. Bettinger mike.bettinger@klgates.com

Patrick Marshall Bible patrick.bible@klarquist.com

Robert T. Cruzen rob.cruzen@klarquist.com

Stephanie Sue Nelson stephanie.nelson@klarquist.com

Eric Lance Wesenberg ewesenberg@orrick.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 5/25/10 CCL

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 849 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3