Medtronic Vascular Inc. et al v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc. et al

Filing 740

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting 729 Second Motion for Leave to Seek Reconsideration (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ Before the court is the second request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding the court's February 6, 2009 order granting summary judgment in part and denying summary judgment in part. This time, it is plaintiffs who have sought relief, arguing: (1) that the court should reconsider the aspect of its decision holding that claim 22 of the `037 patent is anticipated by Wijay, since this holding is inconsistent with the court's decision that Wijay does not anticipate the "non-sinusoidal" limitation claim 1; and (2) that the court should revisit its holding that Wijay discloses a flexure member "interposed between a pair of straight strut portions" ­ as required by claim 22 of the `037 patent and claim 11 of the `255 patent ­ since the court's holding was based on misinterpretation of plaintiffs' arguments. Similar to the court's prior order granting defendants' request for leave to seek reconsideration, the court finds plaintiffs' request persuasive, but only as to one of the grounds presented. The court therefore GRANTS plaintiffs' request to the extent based on the first ground noted above, and DENIES the request to the extent based upon the second. No. C 06-1066 PJH ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Construing the instant request for leave as defendants' actual motion for reconsideration, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(d), the court hereby instructs defendants to file an opposition to plaintiffs' request no later than March 27, 2009. Any reply brief shall be filed by plaintiffs no later than April 3, 2009. The opposition brief shall not exceed 10 pages, and the reply brief may not exceed 5 pages in length. The parties' arguments are limited to the issue upon which plaintiffs' request is granted. The court will thereafter take the matter under submission, and issue a ruling on the papers in conjunction with defendants' pending motion for reconsideration. The parties are further notified that the court will not grant any requests for extension in connection with the above briefing schedule. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 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?