Rambus Inc. v. Nvidia Corporation
Filing
84
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NOS. 08-3343 AND 08-5500. Granting 71 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2009)
<![CDATA[
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 23 24 25 26 27 28 RAMBUS, INC. Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C 08-3343 SI, C 08-5500 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NOS. 08-3343 AND 08-5500
Plaintiff's motion to consolidate is scheduled for a hearing on February 6, 2009. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. The day after Rambus filed this patent lawsuit, defendant NVIDIA filed an antitrust lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina. That lawsuit, NVIDIA Corp. v. Rambus Inc., C 08-5500 SI, which has since been transferred to this District, alleges that Rambus' procurement and subsequent enforcement of certain patents violates the Sherman Act. The North Carolina court transferred NVIDIA's antitrust action to this District on the ground that NVIDIA's antitrust claims properly belonged as counterclaims to Rambus' patent infringement claims in this case. Plaintiff now moves to consolidate the two cases. Defendant does not object to the cases being consolidated, but has filed a "limited opposition" to state its view that any consolidation should "not prejudice the rights of the parties to request appropriate procedural rulings related to the efficient disposition of the case and any appeals, nor limit the Court's discretion in considering such requests." The Court finds that it is appropriate to consolidate these cases, and further finds that consolidation will
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 23 24 25 26 27 28
not prejudice the rights of the parties to request appropriate rulings regarding case management. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for consolidation. (Docket No. 71).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2009
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
