Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-31/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et. al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATED, et. al,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-5429 CW

ORDER OVERRULING

DEFENDANTS' 

OBJECTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

AUGUST 10, 2006

ORDER

On August 16, 2006, Defendants filed an objection to

Magistrate Judge Chen's August 10, 2006 Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion on Scope and Procedure of

Willfulness Discovery. The standard of review on a motion to

reconsider a Magistrate Judge's ruling on a discovery matter is

whether that ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The

August 10, 2006 Order is neither. 

The Court notes that, in their objection, Defendants contend

that the order should be subject to a temporal limitation that does

not handcuff their trial preparation. The Court finds that

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 576 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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 2

temporal limitation within the order: May, 2006, "just before and

during the launch of iPlexTM." Aug. 10, 2006 Order at 14:14-15.

Defendants' Objection (Docket No. 560) is OVERRULED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/5/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 576 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2