NorthPeak Wireless, LLC v. 3Com Corporation et al

Filing 297

ORDER Denying Motion to Relate Cases. Signed by Judge James Ware on 3/13/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Life Point System, Inc., et al., / Northpeak Wireless, LLC, v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 93-20352 JW NO. C 09-0602 CRB ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO RELATE

United 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

Cargill, Inc., et al., 3Com Corp., Defendants.

/

/

Presently before the Court is the Northpeak Defendants' Joint Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related.1 The Northpeak Defendants2 seek to have Northpeak Wireless, LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al., No. 09-00602 CRB, related to the above entitled action filed in 1993. (See Docket Item No. 1.) In the 1993 action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,977,577 ("the `577 Patent"). On June 5, 2000, in light of a settlement agreement, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing all claims with prejudice. (See Docket Item No. 521.) (Northpeak Defendants' Joint Administrative Motion to Consider Whether the Cases Should be Related, hereafter, "Motion," Docket Item No. 523.) The "Northpeak Defendants" refers to twenty-six Defendants in Northpeak Wireless, LLC v. 3Com Corp., No 09-0602 CRB.
2 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The Northpeak action was filed on October 1, 2008. (Motion at 2.) On February 19, 2009, the Northpeak action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Motion at 3.) On March 10, 2009, the Northpeak Defendants moved to relate Northpeak with the 1993 action on the grounds that both actions concern infringement allegations under the `577 Patent, both actions concern similar invalidity defenses, and one of the Plaintiffs in the 1993 action is a critical witness in the Northpeak action. (Motion at 1-2.) Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 3-12(a), cases are related where (1) the actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event, and (2) it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges. Here, the Northpeak action and this action partially overlap in that a Plaintiff in this action is purportedly a critical witness in the Northpeak action and the `577 Patent is one of the patents atissue in the Northpeak action. However, the Court finds that, under the second prong of Local Rule 3-12(a), it is not likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor or conflicting results by conducting the two cases before different judges. The two actions have almost a 13 year gap between them. Thus, the Court finds that the risk of duplicative litigation and inconsistent results is minimal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Northpeak Defendants' Joint Motion to Consider Whether Cases are Related.

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

Dated: March 13, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Avin P. Sharma [e-mail] Melissa A. Finocchio [e-mail] Richard Craig Vasquez [e-mail] Robert J. Benson [e-mail]

Dated: March 13, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

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