Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455-26/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-04455 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION TERMS

Now before the Court is the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration filed by

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”). Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-9(b),

a party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate, inter alia, that “at

the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is

sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying

for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order.” N.D.

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1). 

Gore seeks leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s claim

construction orders based on new facts, specifically extrinsic evidence that demonstrates the

inventor’s understanding of the scope of his invention. Gore contends that although Plaintiffs

produced the documents supporting the motion for reconsideration on July 26, 2007, after

briefing was complete but before the Markman hearing, those documents were produced in

random order. Plaintiffs apparently rectified that error beginning in December 2007. 

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 170 Filed 05/15/08 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

1 From the Court’s review of the exhibits submitted with the motion for

reconsideration, it appears that the documents on which Gore relies were produced on

December 19, 2007.

2

Gore further contends that it “was only able to begin an effective review” of the

document production after December 19, 2007 and that, thereafter, it conducted depositions of

the pertinent witnesses. (See Docket No. 151-2 (Proposed Motion for Reconsideration at 2:1-

22).)1 In light of the errors associated with the original document production, the Court

concludes that Gore has met its burden to show reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the motion

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The proposed motion for

reconsideration is DEEMED FILED. Plaintiffs shall file a response to Gore’s motion to seal by

no later than May 19, 2008.

Plaintiffs shall file an opposition brief to the motion for reconsideration, not to exceed

ten pages, by no later than May 29, 2008. Gore shall file its reply brief, not to exceed seven

pages, by no later than June 5, 2008. The Court shall notify the parties if it believes a hearing is

necessary. By this Order, the Court is not altering any pending deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 170 Filed 05/15/08 Page 2 of 2