Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00735/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00735-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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 1

 In light of this ruling, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over AATI’s state law

claims as well and, consequently, does not reach AATI’s argument that the Court has

independent jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), over AATI’s state law claims.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADVANCED ANALOGIC TECHNOLOGIES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

Defendants /

No. C-06-0735 MMC

AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 15)

Before the Court is defendant Linear Technology Corporation’s (“Linear”) motion,

filed April 14, 2006, to dismiss the instant action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”) has filed opposition; Linear 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 May 19, 2006 hearing.

For the reasons set forth in AATI’s opposition, the Court is satisfied that it has

subject matter jurisdiction over AATI’s declaratory relief claim and that there is no reason to

decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claim.1 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is

hereby DENIED.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Court finds the instant order involves a

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion

and that an immediate interlocutory appeal therefrom may materially advance the ultimate

Case 3:06-cv-00735-MMC Document 51 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 2
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

termination of the litigation.

This order terminates Docket No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00735-MMC Document 51 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2