Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634-20/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monsanto Company
Counter-claimant
The Regents of the University of California
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

1 The court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument as

permitted by Civil L.R. 7-1(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors

Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the

court's considerationof the moving and oppositionpapers is deemed anadequate substitute for

a formal hearing), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 (1992). Accordingly, the August 24, 2005 hearing

date is hereby VACATED.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-0634 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY

MONSANTO COMPANY, APPEAL

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before this court is defendant Monsanto’s motion to certify this court’s June 27, 2005

Order Denying Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Judgment re Double Patenting (“June 27

Order”) for interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit. Having reviewed the papers, the court

DENIES the motion.1 

An interlocutory appeal may be taken only when “the district court, in its discretion, first

certifies that each ruling presented for appeal involves a controlling question of law as to which

there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the

order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Nystrom v. Trex Co.,

Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003), quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

The court here does not find that the matters presented by Monsanto involve controlling

questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. Furthermore,

the court is not convinced that granting an interlocutory appeal in this case would materially

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 370 Filed 08/23/05 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

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Given that the trial in this matter is scheduled

for February 2006, it is possible that, by the time the matter reaches the Federal Circuit, the

question may be moot (for example, if Monsanto prevails at trial). 

The motion is DENIED. This order fully adjudicates the matter listed at no. 279 on the

clerk’s docket for this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2004

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 370 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2