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