Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03843-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

1

 This court also referred to a motion by KOT to augment the record and for reconsideration as

"currently pending before the magistrate judge." The court notes that KOT has recently requested a

ruling from the magistrate judge on this motion. It would appear from the terminal paragraph of

KOT's motion to augment the record and for reconsideration that the motion would be deemed

ORDER OVERRULING KENTUCKY OIL'S OBJECTION TO PORTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER—No. C-04-03843

RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 11/14/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEMRY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENTUCKY OIL TECHNOLOGY, N.V.;

PETER BESSELINK; MEMORY METALS

HOLLAND, B.V.,

Defendants.

No. C-04-03843 RMW

ORDER OVERRULING KENTUCKY OIL'S

OBJECTION TO PORTION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER

[Re Docket Nos. 193, 197, 206, 225]

On September 6, 2006, the magistrate judge assigned to this case ruled on several motions to

compel. Kentucky Oil Technology, N.V. ("KOT") objected under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) to two

aspects of the magistrate judge's order on these motions. In an order dated September 26, 2006, this

court overruled KOT's objection that communications with Wilfried van Moorleghem were

protected by the attorney-client privilege, but gave Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("STC")

the opportunity to respond to KOT's objection that it should not be required to provide further

responses to an interrogatory of STC seeking the dates of reduction to practice.1

 

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 231 Filed 11/14/06 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

withdrawn upon KOT's filing of objections with the district judge. In any event, this court has ruled

based upon the record before it and assumes the magistrate judge did not choose to reconsider his

ruling or allow augmentation of the record.

2

 KOT points out that STC did not assert a defense of patent invalidity to KOT's claim for

correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Defects in subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be

waived. See Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). 

ORDER OVERRULING KENTUCKY OIL'S OBJECTION TO PORTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER—No. C-04-03843

RMW

JAH 2

KOT objects that its counterclaim for patent invalidity has been dismissed, making

irrelevant any reduction to practice. However, KOT will have to corroborate Peter Besselink's

assertion that he reduced to practice the inventions embodied in the patents held by STC. See

Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp. 135 F.3d 1456, 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The interrogatory is

thus directed to information that is potentially relevant to KOT's claim for correction of

inventorship, as knowledge of the precise dates of Besselink's alleged reduction to practice would

aid in the search for corroborating evidence.2

 The magistrate judge's order is not contrary to law,

and KOT's objection is overruled. 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court overrules KOT's objection regarding the reduction-topractice interrogatory.

DATED: 11/14/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 231 Filed 11/14/06 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

ORDER OVERRULING KENTUCKY OIL'S OBJECTION TO PORTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER—No. C-04-03843

RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Andrew C. Ryan ryan@cantorcolburn.com

Michael A. Cantor 

Thomas J Mango tmango@cantorcolburn.com

William J. Cass wcass@cantorcolburn.com

Benjamin J. Holl benjamin.holl@dbr.com

Charles A. Reid, III charles.reid@dbr.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Michael H. Bierman mbierman@luce.com

Nicola A. Pisano npisano@luce.com

Counsel for Counterdefendants:

Nancy J. Geenen ngeenen@foleylaw.com 

Simon E. Dance 

David B. Moyer dmoyer@foley.com

Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.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: 11/14/06 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03843-RMW Document 231 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 3