Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

STORUS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AROA MARKETING, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-2454 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION; SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Before the Court is defendants’ motion, filed February 6, 2008, for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 31, 2008 Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion For Summary Adjudication.

In the Court’s January 31, 2008 order, the Court found, inter alia, that defendants

were not entitled to summary adjudication as to the issue of whether accused products TM

287 Gold and TM 288 Nickel infringe the claims in U.S. Patent 6,082,422 (“‘422 Patent”). 

In their motion for leave, defendants argue the Court failed to consider whether defendants

were entitled to a more limited form of relief with respect to said accused products,

specifically, whether defendants were entitled to a finding that TM 287 Gold and TM 288

Nickel, as depicted in photographs attached to the Declaration of Alexander Elnekaveh, do

not infringe the claims in the ‘422 Patent.

In their motion for summary adjudication, defendants, asserting that plaintiff had

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 203 Filed 02/12/08 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

1

The Court deems the “proposed” motion for reconsideration filed February 6, 2008,

(see Docket # 191), to be filed as of today’s date.

2

identified the accused products by model number, sought summary adjudication by

reference to specified model numbers. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff offered

evidence to support a finding that defendants marketed more than one version of a money

clip under each of two model numbers, TM 287 Gold and TM 288 Nickel. In their reply,

defendants sought to narrow the scope of their motion to the versions of TM 287 Gold and

TM 288 Nickel depicted in Exhibit B to the Elnekaveh Declaration. Plaintiff, however, did

not have the opportunity to respond. Because defendants now raise the issue in a manner

that allows plaintiff an opportunity to respond, and the relief requested may serve to clarify

and narrow the issues remaining for trial, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration,1 and hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than February 20, 2008, plaintiff shall file its response, not to exceed five

pages in length, exclusive of exhibits.

2. No later than noon, February 25, 2008, defendant shall file its reply, if any, not to

exceed three pages in length, exclusive of exhibits.

3. Unless the parties are otherwise informed, the Court will take the motion for

reconsideration under submission on February 25, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 203 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2