Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-36/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Celtrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Genentech, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Insmed Incorporated
Counter-claimant
Insmed Therapeutic Proteins
Defendant
Tercica, Inc.
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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., a Delaware

corporation, and TERCICA, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATED, a Virginia

corporation; CELTRIX PHARMACEUTICALS,

INC., a Delaware corporation; and

INSMED THERAPEUTIC PROTEINS, INC. a

Colorado Corporation,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-5429 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO SEEK PARTIAL

RECONSIDERATION OF

COURT'S JUNE 30,

2006 ORDER AND

SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

Defendants Insmed, Inc., Celtrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and

Insmed Therapeutic Proteins, Inc. move for leave to seek partial

reconsideration of the Court's June 30, 2006 Order on Claim

Construction and Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Specifically,

Defendants seek leave to ask the Court to reconsider the portion of

the Order granting Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc. and Tercica, Inc.

summary judgment that Defendants infringed claims 1 and 2 of U.S.

Patent No. 6,331,414 ('414 patent).

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 609 Filed 09/29/06 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

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states as follows: "No party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave

of Court to file the motion." A motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented

to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in

the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material

facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Having considered Defendants' papers, the Court finds that

good cause exists to grant Defendants leave to seek partial

reconsideration. Therefore, Defendants' Motion for Leave (Docket

No. 511) is GRANTED and the motion for partial reconsideration is

deemed filed and served as of the date of this order. Plaintiffs

may file an opposition to Defendants' motion for partial

reconsideration within two weeks of the date of this order. 

Defendants may file a reply one week later. The matter will be

taken under submission on the papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/29/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 609 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2