SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net International, Inc.

Filing 83

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 82 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 82 Motion for Recusal.. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

SAP AMERICA, INC.,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Case No. 13-cv-1248-PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; ORDER
DENYING REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

Defendant.

13
14
15

On April 22, 2016, the court issued an order denying the motion of plaintiff Dr.

16

Lakshmi Arunachalam for an order lifting the stay in this action and for an order allowing

17

the filing of an amended counterclaim. Now before the court is plaintiff's "first" motion for

18

reconsideration and motion for recusal.

19

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, "[n]o party

20

may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the

21

motion." Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration,

22

and further, her motion does not address the factors set forth in Rule 7-9(b).

23

The motion for recusal is also DENIED. Plaintiff contends that the undersigned

24

should recuse herself because of a purported financial interest in Microsoft Corporation,

25

which previously sought inter-partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,340,506 ('506

26

patent) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. However, the '506 patent is not

27

presently at issue in this case. Plaintiff wishes to put the '506 patent at issue by means

28

of an amended counterclaim, but, because the case is stayed, the court denied the prior

1

motion for leave to amend the counterclaim without addressing the merits. If plaintiff

2

wants to assert infringement of the '506 patent, she cannot do it in this lawsuit while the

3

stay is pending, but rather must file a separate lawsuit. Under these circumstances, the

4

court need not consider whether recusal is appropriate.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: April 27, 2016

8
9

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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
28
2