Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-04204/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-04204-1/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

1

 The opposition complains that this is effectively a motion for reconsideration filed in

violation of Local Civil Rule 7 -9 (a) in that TLC did not first seek leave to file it. Because the

Court prefers to decide this matter on the merits and would not find imposition of sanctions

appropriate under all the circumstances here, it will disregard the procedural defect.

*E-FILED 9/13/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

GENNUM CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

NO. C 01-4204 RS

ORDER DENYING RENEWED

MOTION TO STAY ACTION

Before the Court is the renewed motion of plaintiff Technology Licensing Corporation

(“TLC”) to stay this action pending certain proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark

Office. Pursuant the Court’s order shortening time filed on September 6, 2006 and Local Civil

Rules 6-3 and 7-1 (b), the matter has been submitted the moving papers and written opposition,

without oral argument.

TLC first sought to stay this action pending proceedings in the PTO in June of 2004. By

written order filed on June 3, 2004, the Court denied TLC’s stay motion, for the reasons stated

therein. TLC has renewed1

 the motion based on information it has obtained from the PTO

suggesting that the PTO examiner intends to begin examination of the reissue applications at the

beginning of October, that he “expects” the examination to take “a few weeks,” and that TLC

Case 5:01-cv-04204-RS Document 862 Filed 09/13/06 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

C 01-4204 RS 

2

“should expect a first Official Action from the PTO in both reissue applications in mid-to late

October.” This is insufficient to overcome the reasons the motion was previously denied. The

renewed motion to stay is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:01-cv-04204-RS Document 862 Filed 09/13/06 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

C 01-4204 RS 

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Lina M. Brenner lmbrenner@duanemorris.com, bmcoffey@duanemorris.com

Michael A. Dorfman michael.dorfman@kattenlaw.com, catherine.case@kattenlaw.com;

ecfdocket@kattenlaw.com

Martin C. Fliesler mcf@fdml.com, cakins@fdml.com; mme@fdml.com; mbasch@fdml.com

Daniel J. Herling djherling@duanemorris.com

Gary R. Maze grmaze@duanemorris.com,

J. Donald McCarthy dmccarthy@jonesday.com, gcperez@jonesday.com

Samuel Ray Miller smiller@flk.com

John Arai Mitchell mitch@araimitchell.com

Jennifer S. Romano jsr@flk.com,

Mary Agnes Tuck mtuck@activision.com

Timothy J. Vezeau timothy.vezeau@kattenlaw.com, anne.rova@kattenlaw.com

Nicholas W. van Aelstyn nvanaelstyn@hewm.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 9/13/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:01-cv-04204-RS Document 862 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 3