Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Sequenom, Inc. et al

Filing 351

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION #347 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/5/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,

7

Case No. 12-cv-00865-SI

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

9
SEQUENOM, INC., et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 347

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

BACKGROUND

15

On February 2, 2015, the Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment filed by

16

Sequenom and CHUK, and sua sponte stayed the action pending the Federal Circuit’s resolution

17

of the appeal from Biogen Idec MA, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research, No. CIV. 13-

18

13061-FDS, 2014 WL 2167677 (D. Mass. May 22, 2014), which found that the proper forum for

19

§ 146 appeals from PTAB interference proceedings declared after September 16, 2012 is the

20

Federal Circuit, not a district court. Docket No. 345. This Court found that if the Federal Circuit

21

affirms the Biogen ruling, it would likely deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over this

22

case.1 This Court stayed this case to “spare the parties the expense of prosecuting a trial that may

23

ultimately prove to have been brought in the wrong forum.” Id. at 12.

24

On three separate occasions counsel for CHUK communicated with counsel for Stanford in

25

an attempt to stipulate to a request for a telephonic conference to discuss the implications of the

26

Biogen decision with the Court; however the parties were not able to come to an agreement.

27
1

28

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on March 4, 2015. See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/
oral-argument-recordings/2015-03-04/all

1

Docket No. 344. On January 30, 2015, CHUK filed an administrative motion requesting a

2

telephonic conference to which Stanford did not respond. Id. Three days later, the Court issued its

3

order staying the case which is now the subject of Stanford’s motion for reconsideration.

4
DISCUSSION

6

Stanford brings a motion for reconsideration, contending “manifest failure by the Court to

7

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court.” See

8

Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Stanford’s motion proceeds by first arguing that the Federal Circuit may not

9

even reach the jurisdictional question implicated in the Biogen decision, and by concluding with a

10

lengthy rebuttal of the Biogen court’s holding.2 Neither is a proper basis to file a motion for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

reconsideration.

12

Stanford suggests that it does not appear “that this Court reviewed the appeal briefs in

13

Biogen to verify the issues on appeal for itself to confirm whether the Biogen appeal will resolve

14

the jurisdictional question raised by CUHK.” Motion at 1-2. However, the jurisdictional question

15

is in fact briefed at length in all three appellate briefs. See Motion, Exh. 1-3. Moreover, while it

16

may be theoretically possible for the Federal Circuit to decide the Biogen case without addressing

17

the jurisdictional question which bears on this action, that alone cannot serve as a proper basis for

18

reconsideration.

19

“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings.” Ethicon, Inc.

20

v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see also Clinton v. Jones,

21

520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an

22

incident to its power to control its own docket.”). Courts often stay patent cases to “avoid

23

inconsistent results, narrow the issues, obtain guidance from the PTO, or simply…avoid the

24

needless waste of judicial resources.” Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-CV-02168-

25

EJD, 2011 WL 4802958, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011) (internal citations omitted). Nothing in

26

Stanford’s motion explains how the Court abused its discretion by staying the proceeding. Indeed,

27
2

28

In an unrelated proceeding on December 26, 2014, the PTAB expressed approval of the
Biogen court’s reasoning. Docket No. 342, Exh. B.
2

1

its motion is nothing more than a thinly veiled expression of its disagreement with the Court’s

2

prior order. However “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

3

the Court's decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.

4

Cal. 2001) (discussing Rule 59(e)) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, the Court DENIES

5

Stanford’s motion for reconsideration.3

6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated: May 5, 2015
9
10
________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3

28

Stanford failed to request leave to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by the
Local Rules. Civil L.R. 7-9(a). This serves as an independent ground for denial.
3