Infineon Technologies AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corporation

Filing 150

ORDER OVERRULING IN PART AND SUSTAINING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 8, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 No. C 11-6239 MMC ORDER OVERRULING IN PART AND SUSTAINING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER v. VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Defendant. / 17 18 Before the Court is plaintiff Infineon Technologies AG’s “Motion for De Novo 19 Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge, or, in the Alternative, 20 Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge,” filed October 12, 21 2012; plaintiff seeks such relief pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 Defendant Volterra Semiconductor Corporation has filed opposition, to which plaintiff has 23 replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to the 24 motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing 25 scheduled for November 16, 2012, and rules as follows. 26 By said motion, plaintiff objects to the order, filed October 3, 2012, in which 27 Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu issued her ruling on defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s 28 Amended Infringement Contentions (“AICs”). Specifically, plaintiff objects to the ruling 1 therein: (1) finding the AICs fail to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1(c)’s requirement that 2 infringement contentions identify specifically where each limitation of each claim is found 3 within each accused instrumentality; and (2) finding moot defendant’s argument that the 4 AICs fail to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1(b)’s requirement that infringement 5 contentions specify which of defendant’s products allegedly infringe plaintiff’s such claims. 6 With respect to the former, the Court finds said ruling nondispositive for the reason 7 that the magistrate judge, in so ruling, granted plaintiff leave to amend its AICs. Cf. Shared 8 Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 10-2475, 2011 WL 5320749 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 9 2011) (finding magistrate judge’s order dispositive where magistrate judge struck 10 infringement contentions without leave to amend). The Court further finds the ruling is 11 neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law.” See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a). Accordingly, 12 the objection is hereby OVERRULED. 13 With respect to the latter, regardless of whether the ruling is characterized as 14 dispositive or nondispositive, the Court agrees with plaintiff that the allegations of 15 infringement as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) encompass products 16 beyond those specifically identified therein. (See SAC ¶ 20.) Accordingly, the objection is 17 hereby SUSTAINED, and the matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Ryu for 18 consideration in the first instance of the merits of defendant’s argument that the AICs fail to 19 comply with the specificity requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-1(b). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: November 8, 2012 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?