Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125-21/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

1

 Defendants subsequently filed a motion to strike Excel’s reply, on the ground that a

reply in support of an administrative motion is not authorized by this District’s Local Rules;

in the alternative, defendants submit therein a response on the merits of the reply and

request the Court consider defendants’ motion to strike as, in effect, a sur-reply, to the

extent it addresses the merits. The Court hereby grants defendants’ motion for the

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 ___________________________________

INDIVOS CORPORATION, et al.,

Counterclaimants

 v.

EXCEL INNOVATIONS, INC., et al.,

Counterdefendants

 /

No. C-03-3125 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REOPEN CASE; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STRIKE

Before the Court is plaintiff/counterdefendant Excel Innovations, Inc.’s (“Excel”)

administrative motion filed December 20, 2007, to re-open the case. 

Defendants/counterclaimants Indivos Corporation and Solidus Networks, Inc. (collectively,

“defendants”) have filed a response, to which Excel has filed a reply.1

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 465 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 3
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

alternative relief requested and, accordingly, will consider both the reply and sur-reply.

2

 The Bankruptcy Court’s order became effective thirty days after the date of entry,

(see id. at 2:8-9), i.e., December 5, 2007.

2

On June 18, 2004, Excel notified the Court that it had initiated bankruptcy

proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California

(“Bankruptcy Court”) and, consequently, the above-titled action had been automatically

stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). In light of the stay, the Court conditionally closed

the above-titled action and provided that “[u]pon written application by any party, for good

cause shown, this case shall be re-opened and restored to the active civil calendar.” (See

Order Conditionally Closing Case in Bankruptcy filed June 21, 2004 at 1:23-24.) 

In the instant motion, Excel asserts good cause exists to re-open the case based on

a recent order by the Bankruptcy Court, dated November 5, 2007, which “modified” the stay

“to permit full and complete adjudication and final resolution of all claims pending in the

[instant action],” (see Pl.’s Mot. to Re-open Case Ex. 3 at 2:2-5).2

 

Defendants argue that, notwithstanding the Bankruptcy Court’s order, new grounds

exist that warrant maintaining the stay. Specifically, defendants assert that their own

initiation of bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central

District of California on December 14, 2007 triggered an automatic stay of this action with

respect to those claims brought against defendants. (See Defs.’ Notice of Commencement

of Bankruptcy Case at 1:2-19.) Because defendants’ counterclaims mirror Excel’s claims

against defendants, defendants argue, in the interest of judicial economy such

counterclaims likewise should not be adjudicated. 

Defendants’ argument is based on the assumption that Excel has viable claims

remaining in this action. In fact, all of Excel’s claims and counter-counterclaims have been

resolved, either, in effect, by partial summary adjudication, (see Order dated May 24, 2004

at 49:15-17), or, formally, by dismissal, (see Order dated October 16, 2006 at 1:7-20). 

Accordingly, Excel’s motion to re-open is hereby GRANTED and the stay previously

entered is hereby lifted to the extent it applies to defendants’ counterclaims against Excel. 

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 465 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 3
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

In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 465 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 3