Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-135/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,LTD., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 06-0162 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND

PAGE LIMIT FOR ITS MOTION AS A

MATTER OF LAW

Before the Court is defendants’ “Administrative Motion Pursuant to L.R. 7-11 to

Extend Page Limit for Its Motion as a Matter of Law” (“Administrative Motion”), filed

February 21, 2008, by which defendants seek leave to file a 35-page motion for judgment

as a matter of law (“motion for judgment”). Plaintiff has not filed a response. Having read

and considered the moving papers, the Court, for the reasons set forth below, finds the

Administrative Motion to be both untimely and moot.

Under the Local Rules of this District, the Administrative Motion was not deemed

submitted until February 27, 2008. See Civil L.R. 7-11(b), (c) (providing motion for

administrative relief deemed submitted on fourth court day after motion filed). Because

judgment was entered on February 7, 2008, however, defendants were required to file their

motion for judgment no later than February 22, 2008. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (providing

motion for judgment must be filed no later than ten court days after entry of judgment). 

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 1013 Filed 02/29/08 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

Defendants did not file their proposed 35-page motion as an exhibit to the Administrative

Motion. Consequently, even if the Court were to grant defendants’ Administrative Motion,

such ruling, of necessity, would not be made before the deadline for filing a motion for

judgment had passed.

In any event, defendants, on February 22, 2008, did file a motion for judgment. Said

motion is 25 pages in length and appears to address all issues defendants seek to present

in their motion for judgment as a matter of law. Further, to the extent said motion

incorporates by reference argument made in defendants’ concurrently-filed motion for new

trial, (see, e.g., Defs.’ Mot. for Judgment at 3:20-21), the Court will exercise its discretion to

consider such argument as it applies to the motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the administrative motion for leave to file a 35-page motion for

judgment as a matter of law is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 1013 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 2