MyMedicalRecords Inc v. Jardogs LLC

Filing 25

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTY by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: MyMedicalRecords TO SHOW CAUSE by Monday, October 7, 2013, why it has not moved to add Allscripts as a defendant in its suit against Jardogs or otherwise taken actio n to consolidate both cases. MyMedicalRecords shall respond in writing; no hearing will be held. This Order will be issued in both cases. Plaintiff shall file a response, though likely identical, in eachcase. Defendants need not respond. Failure to t imely respond will result in dismissal of one or both cases for lack of prosecution.The Court also VACATES the scheduling conference currently calendared for October 7, 2013, in the Jardogs case. The Court will defer issuing a scheduling conferenceorder until after discharging this Order. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MYMEDICALRECORDS, INC.,

12
13
14

Case No. 2:13-cv-03560-ODW(SHx)

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.
FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY
PARTY

JARDOGS, LLC,
Defendant.

15
16

On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff MyMedicalRecords, Inc. filed a Complaint against

17

Defendant Jardogs, LLC. MyMedicalRecords owns, among others, U.S. Patent No.

18

8,301,466, which covers Plaintiff’s Internet-based, personal, medical-records system.

19

MyMedicalRecords alleges that Jardogs’s product FollowMyHealth Universal Health

20

Record infringes upon the

21

infringement claim against Jardogs based on Jardogs’s alleged infringement of the

22

466 patent. MyMedicalRecords only brought one patent-

466 patent.

23

On September 23, 2013, MyMedicalRecords filed suit against Allscripts

24

Healthcare Solutions, Inc. MyMedicalRecords alleges that Allscripts acquired all or

25

substantially all of Jardogs in March 2013, thus allegedly rendering Allscripts liable

26

for

27

MyMedicalRecords brings two claims against Allscripts: one for alleged

28

///

any

infringement

resulting

from

Jardogs’s

FollowMyHealth

product.

1

infringement of the

466 patent and one for alleged infringement of

2

MyMedicalRecords’s 8,498,883 patent involving the same Internet-based system.

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) sets forth “necessary” parties, that is,

4

those parties who “must be joined” if they will not deprive the court of subject-matter

5

jurisdiction. A party is necessary if, among others, disposing of the action in that

6

party’s absence may “as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to

7

protect the interest; or . . . leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of

8

incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the

9

interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). If a necessary party has not been joined, the

10

court “must order that the person be made a party.” Id. (a)(2). Under 35 U.S.C.

11

§ 299(a), a plaintiff may joint multiple alleged infringers in one action if plaintiff’s

12

claims arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

13

occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering

14

for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process” and “questions of fact

15

common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action.”

16

Since MyMedicalRecord filed its Complaint against Jardogs several months

17

before its Complaint against Allscripts, the Jardogs case is outpacing the Allscripts

18

case. There is a real possibility that a party may file a dispositive motion in the

19

Jardogs case that would directly bear on the same underlying facts as the Allscripts

20

case. While MyMedicalRecords asserts a second claim against Allscripts based on

21

Allscripts’s infringement of the

22

of the

23

from Jardogs’s FollowMyHealth product. Indeed, in the MyMedicalRecords-Jardogs

24

26(f) report, Plaintiff indicates that it “may seek a consolidation of the two cases given

25

their relationship and the fact that the accused product is the same or similar.”

26

883 patent, both cases involve alleged infringement

466 patent and alleged infringement—regardless of the patent—resulting

It also appears that under 35 U.S.C. § 299, the allegedly infringing product,

27

FollowMyHealth, would constitute “the same accused product or process.”

28

issues such as the

And

466 patent’s validity and whether FollowMyHealth actually

2

1

infringes the

2

466 patent are common to both suits. Joinder would thus be proper

under § 299.

3

The Court therefore ORDERS MyMedicalRecords TO SHOW CAUSE by

4

Monday, October 7, 2013, why it has not moved to add Allscripts as a defendant in

5

its suit against Jardogs or otherwise taken action to consolidate both cases.

6

MyMedicalRecords shall respond in writing; no hearing will be held. This Order will

7

be issued in both cases. Plaintiff shall file a response, though likely identical, in each

8

case. Defendants need not respond. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal

9

of one or both cases for lack of prosecution.

10

The Court also VACATES the scheduling conference currently calendared for

11

October 7, 2013, in the Jardogs case. The Court will defer issuing a scheduling-

12

conference order until after discharging this Order.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

September 30, 2013

16
17
18
19

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3