Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-21/pdf.json

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER ENTERING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT 

BASED UPON OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE 

DOUBLE PATENTING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 212, 213, 250, 254

In an order filed December 13, 2018, the Court ordered defendant Micron Technology Inc. 

to state its position regarding the viability of its obviousness-type double patenting (“OTDP”)

defense in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge 

Pharmaceutical Inc., Case No. 2017-2173, ___ F.3d ___, 2018 WL 6423451 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 

2018). In Novartis, the Federal Circuit held that a later-filed, earlier-expiring post-URAA patent is 

not a proper OTDP reference that can be used to invalidate an earlier-filed, later-expiring pre-URAA 

patent. Throughout this case,1 Micron has contended that the patent-in-suit, the pre-URAA‘571 

patent, is invalid based upon the ‘851 and ‘814 patents, which are post-URAA patents that were 

filed after, and expired before, the ‘571 patent.

On December 18, 2018, Micron filed its response to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 

254. Micron “disagrees with the reasoning and holding of Novartis” and it continues to “believe[] 

the later-issued but earlier-expiring ‘851 and ‘814 are proper double-patenting references for the 

 

1

 Micron twice moved for summary judgment on this defense, and the Court denied both 

motions without prejudice, finding that Micron had not met its burden because, inter alia, additional 

claim construction was required. See Dkt. Nos. 70, 128. After those orders were filed, the parties 

submitted letter briefs on a variety of issues related to Micron’s ODTP defense, including claim 

construction of the ‘851 and ‘814 patents, the proper direction of the ODTP analysis, and whether 

the ODTP defense (or any part of it) should be resolved by the jury or the Court. 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 265 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

earlier-issued but later-expiring ‘571 patent.” Id. at 1. Nevertheless, Micron recognizes that 

Novartis precludes this defense. Id. at 2. In order to preserve Micron’s rights, including to appeal 

an adverse decision to the Federal Circuit, Micron requests that the Court enter summary judgment 

that the ‘851 and ‘814 patents cannot be used as OTDP references against the ‘571 patent based 

upon Novartis, without prejudice to reconsideration should Novartis be altered on further review by 

the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court. 

The Court finds that Micron’s suggestion is proper and in the interest of judicial economy, 

and accordingly the Court GRANTS summary judgment against Micron on its OTDP defense based 

upon the ‘851 and ‘814 patents as invalidating references. The Court finds that the holding and 

reasoning of Novartis preclude this defense because the ‘851 and ‘814 patents are post-URAA 

patents that were filed after, and expired before, the pre-URAA ‘571 patent. See Novartis, 2018 

WL 6423451, at *7 (“[W]here we have an earlier-filed, earlier-issued, pre-URAA patent that expires 

after the later-filed, later-issued, post-URAA patent due to a change in statutory patent term law, we 

decline to invalidate the challenged pre-URAA patent by finding the post-URAA patent to be a 

proper obviousness-type double patenting reference.”). This grant of summary judgment is without 

prejudice to reconsideration in the event that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court alters the 

holding of Novartis.

The Court makes no finding at this time regarding the viability of Micron’s OTDP defense 

to the extent Micron relies on other patents as invalidating references, as those matters have not 

been briefed by either party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2018 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 265 Filed 12/21/18 Page 2 of 2