Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03116/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03116-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
KLA-Tencor Corporation
Counter-defendant
Nanometrics Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION, a 

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NANOMETRICS INC., a California

corporation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-03116 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 24,

2006:

The Court tentatively GRANTS defendant Nanometrics Inc.’s (“Nanometrics”) motion to

stay. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and does not wish to hear argument

summarizing the positions taken in those briefs. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited

in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties

submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities

only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be

given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The parties shall

not file written responses to the questions posed in this notice. 

Case 3:05-cv-03116-JSW Document 68 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Each party will have twenty minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Is Nanometrics seeking to have U.S. Patent No. 6,611,330 (“the `330 patent”) reexamined? 

If so, by when will Nanometrics file the request with the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (“PTO”)? When is the PTO likely to decide whether to reexamine the `330 patent?

(2) How similar or dissimilar are the technologies at issue in U.S. Patents Nos. 6,483,580 (“the

`580 patent”) and 6,590,656 (“the `656 patent”) from the technology in the `330 patent? Is

there discovery that is likely to be conducted solely with respect to the `330 patent that would

not be relevant to the `580 and/or `656 patent? Should the case move forward with respect to

the `330 patent if the Court issues a stay with respect to the `580 and `656 patents?

(3) Nanometrics cites Methode Electronics, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 20689 (N.D. Cal. 2000), in support of its argument that this Court should stay all

infringement proceedings, including those related to the `330 patent. In Methode, the court

stayed the proceedings of a non-reexamined patent-in-suit pending reexamination of another

patent-in-suit because “although discovery will still take place regarding the same accused

product regardless of the reexamination results, . . . the issues regarding the [nonreexamined] patent may be narrowed or amended as a result of the PTO’s decision. 

Furthermore, it appears that there are overlapping issues in [both the reexamined and nonreexamined patent] infringement actions.” 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20689, at *8.

(a) Does Plaintiff KLA-Tencor, Corporation (“KLA-Tencor”) contend that the same

accused Nanometrics products infringe all three patents-in-suit? If so, are there issues

to be resolved that are unrelated to the infringement of the `656 and `580 patents? If

there are issues to be resolved that are unrelated to the infringement of the `656 and

`580 patents, what precisely are those issues?

(b) Although the `330 patent relates to a polarimetric system while the `580 patent relates

to a spectroscopic scatterometer system, both claim 21 of the `580 patent and claim

28 of the `330 patent seem to involve directing a beam of broadband radiation at a

sample. Does this constitute an “overlapping issue,” within the meaning of Methode

Electronics, warranting a stay of the entire proceedings?

Case 3:05-cv-03116-JSW Document 68 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

(c) Both claim 21 of the `580 patent and claim 28 of the `330 patent also appear to

address the function of measuring optically detectable properties or parameters of a

sample, such as film thickness. Does this constitute an “overlapping issue” within the

meaning of Methode Electronics?

(4) Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03116-JSW Document 68 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3