Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of America Inc. et al
ORDER re Claims against Defendant Hillcrest by Judge Richard A Jones. (CL) (cc/via mail and e-mail: Order to attys M. Smith and J. Michaels)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
TRITON TECH OF TEXAS, LLC,
NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
The court has reviewed the parties’ statements in response to the court’s March 1,
2013 order (Dkt. # 138). That order asked the parties to clarify their positions in light of
the possibly inadvertent transfer 1 of Plaintiff’s claims against two Defendants (Xsens
North America, Inc. and Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc.) to this court. Since then, Plaintiff
and Xsens have resolved their claims. Plaintiff has no objection to the transfer of its
claims against Hillcrest, and no objection to trying those claims along with its claims
against Defendant Nintendo of America, Inc. Nintendo, on the other hand, has no
objection to the transfer, but contends that the court should sever claims against Hillcrest.
CASE NO. C13-157RAJ
Hillcrest, for its part, has been silent. In response to the clerk’s standard letter
(Dkt. # 127) advising counsel of their obligation to apply for pro hac vice admission (or
In its statement, Nintendo provided a transcript of the hearing on the motion to transfer, which
clarifies that the judge presiding in the Eastern District of Texas elected to transfer this case in its
entirety, then allow the transferee court to decide whether to sever any claims. The effect of this
ruling was to transfer Plaintiff’s claims against Hillcrest and Xsens to this court, even though no
party requested the transfer.
ORDER – 1
notify the court that they do not intend to seek pro hac vice admission), Hillcrest (through
its counsel) has done nothing. The letter advised counsel that they would receive no
further notification of filings in this case until they obtained pro hac vice admission. The
court thus assumes that Hillcrest has not received notice of the March 1 order.
Under these circumstances, the court will sever Plaintiff’s claims against Hillcrest.
The clerk need not do anything, at this time, to effect the severance. As of now, Hillcrest
has not entered a valid appearance in this court. It will be up to Plaintiff to determine
how to proceed with respect to its claims against Hillcrest. If necessary, the court will
create a separate case for Plaintiff’s claims against Hillcrest. If nothing has occurred with
respect to Hillcrest by the time the court enters an order resolving Plaintiff’s claims
against Nintendo, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Hillcrest without
If the court chooses to hold a Markman hearing, it will advise Plaintiff and
Nintendo. The court is currently considering their claim construction briefs.
As a courtesy, the clerk shall send copies of this order via both email and postal
mail to Hillcrest’s most recent counsel of record:
Melissa Richards Smith
Gilliam & Smith, LLP
303 S. Washington Ave.
Marshall, TX 75670
J. Michael Jakes
Finnegan Henderson Farabow
Garrett & Dunner
901 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413
DATED this 25th day of March, 2013.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
ORDER – 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.