Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00651/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00651-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISTO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPROQIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0651 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DENYING PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(Docket No. 141)

The motion came on for hearing on May 10, 2006. Having considered the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to the motion and the argument of counsel, and good cause appearing

therefor, the Court hereby DENIES the motion.

Plaintiff has not satisfied the criteria set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). It has not

demonstrated a material difference in fact or law, the emergence of new material facts or a change of

law, or a manifest failure by this Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that

previously were presented to the Court. The Court, in its order denying the motion for preliminary

injunction, recognized and applied the legal principles re-asserted by Plaintiff in their current

motion. Plaintiff essentially seeks to reargue the original motion. 

Moreover, even considering the papers filed in support of the instant motion, the Court

concludes its initial decision was correct. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s assertion herein, Defendant

raises a substantial question on the merits. Moreover, the Court’s ultimate construction of the term

Case 3:04-cv-00651-EMC Document 157 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

“workspace element” discussed in the Court’s prior order will be decided at the Markman hearing

now scheduled within the next two months.

The denial of Plaintiff’s motion is without prejudice to its seeking reconsideration should it

prevail on a material term at the Markman hearing in a manner which changes the Court’s

assessment of likelihood of success.

This order disposes of Docket No. 141.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00651-EMC Document 157 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2