Memory Control Enterprise, LLC v. Symantec Corporation

Filing 51

ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM; CONTINUING HEARING. Plaintiff may file, no later than June 5, 2009, a supplemental memorandum in support of its motion, not to exceed 5 pages in length, independent of exhibits and/or declarations. In light of the above, the hearing scheduled for June 5, 2009 is continued to June 26, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 29, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff Memory Control Enterprise, LLC's motion, filed April 30, 2009, for leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") that adds three new defendants to the above-titled action and alleges each defendant infringed United States Patent Number 6,952,719 ("`719 patent") by, inter alia, "making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell" such defendant's products. (See Mot. Ex. 1 (Proposed FAC) ¶¶ 11-18.) No opposition to the motion has been filed. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court is not persuaded, on the record before it at this time, that joinder of the three additional parties at issue would be proper. In particular, plaintiff has failed to show its proposed claims against such parties arise out of the same "transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" as plaintiff's claims against defendant Symantec Corporation ("Symantec"), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (providing persons may be joined as defendants v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Defendant. / MEMORY CONTROL ENTERPRISE, LLC, Plaintiffs, No. C-09-1063 MMC ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM; CONTINUING HEARING United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

if "any right to relief is asserted against them . . . with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences"), as the question of whether each party's products infringe the `719 patent would appear to depend on a distinct "factual background," see Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting "the `same transaction' requirement[ ] refers to similarity in the factual background of a claim").1 The Court will, however, afford plaintiff an opportunity to supplement its showing on this issue. Accordingly, plaintiff may file, no later than June 5, 2009, a supplemental memorandum in support of its motion, not to exceed 5 pages in length, independent of exhibits and/or declarations. In light of the above, the hearing scheduled for June 5, 2009 is hereby CONTINUED to June 26, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

Although plaintiff asserts that, if the proposed amendment is allowed, there is likely to be "common evidence . . . regarding invalidity" (see Mot. at 4:12-13), plaintiff makes no argument concerning the factual relationship, if any, between its claims of infringement against Symantec and those against any of the three proposed defendants. 2

1