Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03235/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03235-3/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ULTRATECH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TAMARACK SCIENTIFIC CO.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-03235 CRB

ORDER

On May 17, 2005, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting Tamarack

Scientific’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity on all claims on which the Court had

previously granted summary judgment of infringement. After considering the parties’

submissions on what, if anything, remains to be tried in this case, the Court concludes that no

trial is necessary and that judgment should be issued forthwith. 

The Court will not address Tamarack’s motion for summary judgment on the

withdrawn models. As the models were not included in Ultratech’s Final Infringement 

Contentions they are not at issue in this case.

The Court declines Tamarack’s invitation to hold a bench trial on its inequitable

conduct defense. The Court will not hold a bench trial based on the possibility that Ultratech

may in the future file claims that it withdrew from this lawsuit. If the appellate court

reverses any of the Court’s rulings in this matter, the inequitable conduct issue can be 

Case 3:03-cv-03235-CRB Document 578 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2003\3235\orderretrial.wpd 2

addressed at that time. See Tamarack’s Memorandum at 2 n.1. 

Finally, the Court may consider Ultratech’s alleged inequitable conduct in connection

with Tamarack’s motion for attorneys’ fees without holding a bench trial on Tamarack’s

inequitable conduct defense. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in connection with

any post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees, the Court can determine if an evidentiary hearing is

necessary and, if so, the scope of such hearing.

Accordingly, the June 6, 2005 trial date is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2005

 /s/ 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03235-CRB Document 578 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2