Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-62/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELERITY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

 v.

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

AND SERVICE, INC.

Defendant/Counterclaimant

and

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant /

No. C-05-4374 MMC

(Consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion for Sanctions Re: Inequitable Conduct Claim

Alleged By UCT,” filed October 12, 2007. Defendants have filed opposition, to which

plaintiff has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision on the

papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 30, 2007, and rules as follows.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions, under both 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court’s inherent

power, in light of defendants’ having asserted a counterclaim of unenforceability that,

according to plaintiff, was baseless. An award of sanctions under § 1927 must be

supported by a finding of “subjective bad faith.” See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F. 3d

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 545 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, an award of sanctions under a district court’s

inherent power must be supported by a finding “tantamount to bad faith.” See id. at 1108

(internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, the Court finds, for the reasons stated by

defendants, (see Defs.’ Opp., filed October 31, 2007, at 13:16-14:18), that defendants did

not act in bad faith in alleging the subject counterclaim or in dismissing the claim shortly

before the scheduled court trial.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 545 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2