Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
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

EXCEL INNOVATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INDIVOS CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C-03-3125 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION; VACATING

HEARING

(Docket No. 315)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed June 2, 2006, for reconsideration of the

Court’s September 28, 2005 order denying plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment, pursuant

to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the issue of patent ownership. 

Defendants have filed opposition to the motion; plaintiff 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 resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and hereby

VACATES the July 7, 2006 hearing.

Although plaintiff has identified certain changed circumstances since the issuance of

the Court’s September 28, 2005 order – specifically, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate

Panel’s decisions of December 24, 2005 and May 2, 2006, and the winding down of the

bankruptcy proceedings of Aviv LLC (“Aviv”) – the Court is not persuaded that entry of

judgment under Rule 54(b) is appropriate. Although the trustee’s final report in the Aviv

bankruptcy proceedings has been approved, (see Hansen Decl. Ex. 2.), the Aviv

bankruptcy proceedings have not yet been closed and, consequently, it is not clear that

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 322 Filed 06/26/06 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 1

 Defendants state they intend to refile their motion for sanctions shortly.

2

judgment of patent ownership may be entered with respect to all parties to the instant

litigation. In addition, defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions against plaintiff has not

yet been decided,1

 and plaintiff has asserted various causes of action that may remain to

be resolved if the motion for sanctions is denied. The Court is not convinced that “the

nature of the claims already determined [is] such that no appellate court would have to

decide the same issues more than once.” See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric

Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 322 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2