Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document50

Filed08/04/11 Page1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. BROADCOM CORP., Defendant. ____________________________________/ RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. MEDIATEK INC., Defendant. ____________________________________/

*E-Filed 8/4/11*

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

No. C 10-05437 RS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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 v.

No. C 10-05447 RS

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,

No. C 10-05449 RS

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants. ____________________________________/
NO. C 10-05437 RS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document50

Filed08/04/11 Page2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, prior to entry of judgment, any party may make a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order of the court. In this patent litigation suit, defendants Broadcom, MediaTek, and STMicroelectronics request such leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2011 Order granting in part and denying in part their motions to stay. In that Order, the Court declined to stay this case in its entirety until the conclusion of International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings involving some of the same patents asserted here. Defendants base their request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration on subsection (b)(2) of Rule 7-9, under which the moving party must specifically show “the emergence of new material facts or a change in law” that has occurred since entry of the Court’s order. In support, defendants refer to an order entered by another district court staying a patent case in its entirety in light of a parallel ITC suit. Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., Case No. 11:03397JHN, C.D. Cal., order entered July 11, 2011. A district court retains the discretion to stay proceedings as part of its inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In determining whether to grant a discretionary stay, the court weighs competing interests including the hardships placed on the parties with or without a stay and the potential benefits to “the orderly course of justice.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). This exercise necessarily depends on specific factors in the case at hand, as well as the Court’s own determination on how best to manage its docket. Thus, the decision by a different district court in a different suit does not represent a “change in law” warranting a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the June 2011 Order is denied.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/4/11 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NO. C 10-05437 RS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful