Aristocrat Technologies et al v. International Game Technology et al

Filing 849

ORDER by Judge Whyte withdrawing 686 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.(rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs Aristocrat Technologies, et al. (collectively "Aristocrat") have requested the court's permission to withdraw its motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") without prejudice. The court has discretion to allow a party to withdraw a motion. See Civ. L. R. 7-7(e) (if request to withdraw is not made within 7 days of service of an opposition, "the Court may proceed to decide the motion") (emphasis added). Aristocrat originally sought leave to add a new party and new claims of patent infringement based on a recently issued patent in its SAC. Defendants International Game Technology and IGT (collectively "IGT") oppose Aristocrat's motion for leave to amend, alleging prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, futility, and lack of judicial economy. In opposing the motion, IGT argued that: (1)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION --No. C-06-03717 RMW CCL

E-FILED on

5/25/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED and ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY and IGT,

No. C-06-03717 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION [Re Docket No. 686]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Aristocrat could request that discovery in this case be used in future litigation between the parties, and (2) if IGT prevails in its motion for summary judgment on the existing claims, there would be no need for trial in this case, and thus "no efficiency [] would result from going to trial on a single patent based on discovery directed entirely at two other patents that are no longer part of the case." Dkt. No. 732 at 20-21. On May 13, 2010, the court granted IGT's motion for summary judgment on the existing claims. Consequently, the issues that remain in dispute are unique to the new claims that Aristocrat originally sought to add in a SAC. These issues may take some time to resolve, and whether Aristocrat has viable claims may depend on what action the Patent and Trademark Office takes or declines to take. As IGT pointed out in its opposition to Aristocrat's motion seeking leave to amend, no judicial economy would be gained from determining issues unique to the new claims when summary judgment has already been granted on the existing claims. In fact, allowing Aristocrat to bring new claims in a separate complaint, if it wishes to do so, would likely simplify the issues for adjudication. There does not appear to be any good reason for delaying an appeal of the issues that dispose of the case as it now exists, if Aristocrat wishes to do so. For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Aristocrat's request to withdraw its motion for leave to file a SAC without prejudice to asserting the new claims in a separate complaint, if it wishes to do so.

DATED: 23 24 25 26 27 28

5/25/10 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION --No. C-06-03717 RMW CCL 2

1 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: 2 Counsel for Plaintiffs: 3 4 5 6 Counsel for Defendants: 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW MOTION --No. C-06-03717 RMW CCL 3

Anthony R. de Alcaeus Terrence Patrick McMahon Jeremy Todd Elman Robert J. Blanch , Jr. Phillip C. Ducker

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Jeffrey Stewart Love Daniel Justin Weinberg Gabriel M. Ramsey Garth Alan Winn Kristin L. Cleveland Laura Kieran Kieckhefer Michael J. Bettinger Patrick Marshall Bible Robert T. Cruzen Stephanie Sue Nelson Eric Lance Wesenberg

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

5/25/10

CCL Chambers of Judge Whyte