Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-80/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER DENYING MLC'S 

"SUGGESTION REGARDING THE 

COURT'S RECUSAL"

Re: Dkt. No. 702

It has been brought to the Court’s attention that the document filed by plaintiff MLC at 

Docket No. 702 is a “Suggestion” regarding the Court’s recusal rather than a motion to disqualify, 

and thus that it is within the Court’s discretion to resolve the matter. See Civil L.R. 3-14. The Court 

has examined the record and concludes that there is no basis for recusal in this case. The Court 

recused itself from 19-3345 because the Court’s conflicts check revealed the presence of a conflict 

with IMFT. Neither IMFT nor Intel is a party to this action.1 See generally In re Specht, 622 F.3d 

697 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Aragon, No. 99-50341, 2000 WL 868566, at *1 (9th Cir. June 

29, 2000). Further, after the filing of MLC’s “Suggestion” and in an abundance of caution, the 

Court divested itself of Intel stock. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(f).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES MLC’s “Suggestion” of recusal, finding no basis for recusal 

in this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

 The Court was unaware of the conflict posed by IMFT (Intel) until 19-3345 was assigned 

to the undersigned and the automated conflicts check revealed the conflict. The Court notes that 

MLC never disclosed IMFT or Intel as an “interested party” pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15; 

“interested parties” are included in the automated conflicts check. 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 710 Filed 10/17/19 Page 1 of 1