Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-md-01423/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-md-01423-6/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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 60(b)(3)

—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 10/18/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC, PATENT

LITIGATION

______________________________________

THIS ORDER RELATES TO: 

CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T CORP.,

Defendant.

No. MDL-1423 

(C-04-04247 RMW)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF

UNDER RULE 60(b)(3) 

[Re Docket Nos. 102, 107, 111, 116, 120]

Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC, has filed a motion ostensibly for relief under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). Cygnus, however, essentially seeks (1) reconsideration of this court's

November 29, 2005 order granting defendant AT&T Corporation's motion for judgment on the

pleadings, and (2) leave to file a third amended complaint. AT&T Corp. moves to strike Cygnus's

motion.

On this court's own motion, these two motions are deemed submitted on the papers. No oral

argument will be held; no appearance is needed. 

Case 5:02-md-01423-RMW Document 662 Filed 10/18/06 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

1

 Cygnus does not even mention Minnesota law, which the court had previously determined applied

to the trade secret misappropriation claim. Cygnus instead refers to the law of other jurisdictions

and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 60(b)(3)

—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

JAH 2

AT&T Corp.'s motion to strike is denied. A motion to strike is not properly brought ex

parte. In any case, nothing in Cygnus's motion is impertinent or scandalous. Whether Cygnus's

motion contains redundant or immaterial matter is moot in light of the court's ruling on the motion.

Cygnus is not entitled to relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) because the November 29, 2005

order is not "final" as required by that rule. Additionally, the allegedly fraudulent conduct of AT&T

Corp. occurred before this suit was filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) is intended to remedy only fraud

committed during litigation. Roger Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 427 F.3d 129, 134 (1st Cir.

2005).

Even considering Cygnus's motion as (an albeit procedurally improper) request for

reconsideration of the November 29, 2005 order, the court affirms the November 29, 2005 order. 

Cygnus's attempt to revive its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is thus futile and leave to

file the proposed revised third amended complaint is denied.1

 Additionally and independently,

Cygnus's attempt to amend its complaint again comes too late in this litigation. See Solomon v. N.

Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 1998).

Cygnus's motion insofar as it seeks to add AT&T Inc. as a defendant is also denied. Plaintiff

apparently has no facts (and has not pleaded any) suggesting AT&T Inc. as a parent is liable for the

acts of AT&T Corp. Cygnus says it wants to name AT&T Inc. in order to pursue successor liability

if necessary. Plaintiff has pleaded no facts showing a basis or need to name AT&T Inc.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the court

1. denies AT&T's motion to strike, and

2. denies Cygnus's motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3).

DATED: 10/18/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-md-01423-RMW Document 662 Filed 10/18/06 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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 60(b)(3)

—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

JAH 3

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

John P. Sutton

2421 Pierce Street

San Francisco, CA 94115-1131

Lewis Donald Prutzman 

Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschritt LLP` 

900 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Defendants:

Felice B. Galant; Joseph P. Zammit 

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 

666 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10103-3198 

Gregory B. Wood 

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 

865 South Figueroa Street, 29th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Kieran Patrick Fallon 

436 SW 8th Street 

Miami, FL 33130-2814 

Courtesy Copy:

Clerk of the Panel

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Room G-255, North Lobby

Washington, D.C. 20002-8004

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:02-md-01423-RMW Document 662 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 3