Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation et al

Filing 241

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 233 Motion ; denying 236 Motion for Leave to File. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-00876-RS

v.
STRYKER CORPORATION, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
LIMIT, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Defendants.

12
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. (“KSEA”) requests various forms of miscellaneous
13
relief styled as: (i) a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 11, 2016
14
15
16
17
18

Case Management Scheduling Order, which requires KSEA to reduce the number of asserted
claims or, alternatively, (ii) a motion for clarification that KSEA may assert additional claims on a
showing of good cause, and (iii) a motion to limit the number of prior art invalidity theories
asserted by Stryker Corporation and Stryker Communications, Inc. (collectively, “Stryker”).
These are case management issues. They should be briefed and argued at the next case

19

management conference. As styled, KSEA’s motions are improper and lack merit. First, a motion

20

for reconsideration, under Local Rule 7-9, is meant for contesting substantive legal orders, not

21

scheduling orders. Second, the relief sought by KSEA’s motion for clarification is unnecessary.

22

As Stryker notes, the August 11, 2016 order is a scheduling order and is therefore subject to

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Under that rule, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good

24

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Thus, the authority for KSEA to

25

seek to modify the order for good cause already exists. Third, the motion to limit prior art

26

references is premature and KSEA provides no justification for resolving this issue outside of the

27
28

1

normal case management context.1 For these reasons, KSEA’s motions are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

Dated: November 18, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

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

1

The next case management conference is scheduled for March 23, 2017. KSEA argues that these
issues should be resolved before expert reports are due, but expert reports are not due until June
2017. In any event, specific scheduling concerns can be discussed at the case management
conference.
ORDER RE: MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF
CASE NO. 14-cv-00876-RS

28
2