Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00686/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00686-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIDEC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN, LTD., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-0686 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 48, 61, 73]

On January 25, 2006, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Nidec Corporation, Defendants and

Counter-Plaintiffs Victor Company of Japan, Ltd., JVC Components (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and

Defendants Agilis Inc. and Agilis Technology Inc. participated in a Case Management Conference. The

Court issued its Pretrial Scheduling Order ("Pretrial Order") on January 26, 2005. In the Pretrial Order,

the Court scheduled a claim construction hearing for July 6, 2006, and set other deadlines affecting

claim construction. 

On March 2, 2006, five weeks after the Case Management Conference, Plaintiff filed with the

Court a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,453,973. The Motion

was noticed for an April 11, 2006 hearing. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff asks the

Court to construe two terms from U.S. Patent No. 5,453,973. 

 On March 8, 2006, Defendants filed a Miscellaneous Administrative Request to (1) Strike Nidec

Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, or (2) Have the Claim Construction

Issues Raised by Nidec's Motion Adjourned to July 6, 2006 at the Scheduled Claim Construction

Hearing and Have the Remainder of the Motion of Summary Judgment Be Heard after the Court Has

Ruled on the Claim Construction Issues and Nidec Corporation Has Provided the Discovery Sought by

Defendants. In the Administrative Request, Defendants ask the Court to either strike Plaintiff's Motion

for Summary Judgment, or to defer consideration of the claim construction issues presented by that

Motion until the July 6, 2006 claim construction hearing and defer consideration of the application of

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 79 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 3
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

the claims to the accused products until after discovery on such issues has been completed and the Court

has issued its ruling on claim construction. 

On March 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendants' Administrative Request. On

March 14, 2006, Defendants filed a reply in support of its Administrative Request. On March 15, 2006,

Plaintiff filed an Administrative Request for Leave to File Nidec Corporation's Sur-Reply in Support

of Its Opposition to Defendants' Miscellaneous Administrative Request to Strike Nidec's Motion for

Summary Judgment or Continue Hearing until after Claim Construction and Discovery. 

Having considered Defendants' Administrative Request, and the reasons set forth therein, the

Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is premature. This Court specifically

discussed scheduling issues with the parties at the January 25, 2006 Case Management Conference and,

based on that discussion, determined that claim construction should be heard by the Court on July 6,

2006. Defendants have not identified a single event that has occurred since the January 25, 2006 Case

Management Conference that would alter this Court's conclusion that the dates set forth in the current

Pretrial Order with respect to the claim construction procedures are reasonable. To the extent Plaintiff

wanted to have the Court construe some of the claims earlier than July 6, 2006, Plaintiff should have

brought this consideration to the Court's attention during the Case Management Conference. Further,

the Court finds that performing claim construction piece-meal is not the most efficient use of the Court's

resources. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Miscellaneous Administrative Request to (1)

Strike Nidec Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, or (2) Have the Claim

Construction Issues Raised by Nidec's Motion Adjourned to July 6, 2006 at the Scheduled Claim

Construction Hearing and Have the Remainder of the Motion of Summary Judgment Be Heard after the

Court Has Ruled on the Claim Construction Issues and Nidec Corporation Has Provided the Discovery

Sought by Defendants [Docket No. 61] is GRANTED in part. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

is CONTINUED from April 11, 2006 to September 12, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,453,973 [Docket No. 48] and all briefing

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 79 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

that relates to such motion are STAYED until July 25, 2006, at which time Defendants will file their

opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's reply in support of its Motion for

Summary Judgment is due on August 8, 2006. The Court may, in its discretion, adjudicate the Motion

without a hearing, in which case the Clerk will notify the parties that no appearance is necessary.

Except for the briefing schedule expressly set forth herein, the parties may not alter the deadlines set

forth herein or file any further documents concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment without

first seeking leave of Court and demonstrating the existence of good cause.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Administrative Request for Leave to File Nidec

Corporation's Sur-Reply in Support of Its Opposition to Defendants' Miscellaneous Administrative

Request to Strike Nidec's Motion for Summary Judgment or Continue Hearing until after Claim

Construction and Discovery [Docket No. 73] is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 3/17/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00686-SBA Document 79 Filed 03/17/06 Page 3 of 3