Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

Filing 82

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASE re 81 Notice (Other) filed by Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 10/8/13. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE LLC, 12 13 Plaintiff(s), No. C-13-03587 DMR ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES v. 14 YELP INC, 15 Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 16 17 Before the court is a motion by Plaintiff Evolutionary Intelligence LLC (“Plaintiff”) to relate 18 eight cases pending in this district to the above-captioned case. [Docket No. 78.] Defendant Yelp 19 Inc. (“Yelp”) has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion.1 [Docket No. 81.] The matter is 20 appropriate for resolution pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11(c). For the reasons stated below, the 21 motion is denied. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Under consideration are eight lawsuits in addition to the instant case originally filed by 24 25 Plaintiff against different defendants in the Eastern District of Texas: Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4201-WHA; 26 27 28 1 The court notes that in the present action, both parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge for all further proceedings in the case, including trial and the order of entry of a final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). 1 Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4202-JSC; 2 Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. FourSquare Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4203-EDL; 3 Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4204-LB; 4 Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. LivingSocial, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4205-EDL; 5 Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Millennial Media, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-4206-HRL; 6 Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-4207-KAW; and 7 Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-4513-JCS. 8 9 Each of these cases concern the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,010,536 and 7,702,682. On January 15, 2013, all of the above cases were transferred to Judge Schneider in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to General Orders regarding case assignment ratios in that 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 district. The cases were not related to one another. See Docket No. 21; E.D. Tex. General Order 13- 12 2. All of the above cases were subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California and 13 randomly assigned to different judges. 14 15 II. DISCUSSION An action is related to another when (1) the actions concern substantially the same parties, 16 property, transaction, or event; and (2) it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome 17 duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different 18 judges. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). The local rules require party filing an administrative motion to consider 19 whether cases should be related to serve a copy of the motion and proof of service on all known 20 parties to each apparently related action. Civ. L.R. 3-12(b).2 21 The cases do not concern the same “parties, property, transaction or event.” Each case 22 concerns a different defendant and accuses different products or services. See Compl. [Docket No. 23 1] at ¶¶ 10, 14 (alleging that Yelp infringes the patents by making its Yelp online urban city guide 24 and business review product and service); Apple, Case No. 3:13-cv-4201-WHA, Docket No. 27 at ¶¶ 25 9, 13 (alleging that Apple infringes the patents by making its iOS mobile operating system and 26 27 2 28 Plaintiff has apparently failed to meet this requirement. See Apple Opp. [Docket No. 79] at 2 (Plaintiff did not serve the motion and a proof of service on Apple). 2 Facebook infringes the patents by making its Facebook social networking and advertising product 3 and service); FourSquare Labs, Case No. 3:13-cv-4203-EDL, Docket No. 9 at ¶¶ 9, 13 (alleging that 4 Foursquare infringes the patents by making its Foursquare mobile device application and merchant 5 platform); Groupon, Case No. 3:13-cv-4204-LB, Docket No. 26 at ¶¶ 9, 14 (alleging that Groupon 6 infringes the patents by making its Groupon location-based coupon product and service); 7 LivingSocial, Case No. 3:13-cv-4205-EDL, Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 9, 14 (alleging that LivingSocial 8 infringes the patents by making its location-based coupon product and service); Millennial Media, 9 Case No. 5:13-cv-4206-HRL, Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 9, 14 (alleging that Millennial Media infringes the 10 patents by making its mMedia and MYDAS mobile advertising products and services)Twitter, Case 11 For the Northern District of California compatible devices); Facebook, Case No. 3:13-cv-4202-JSC, Docket No. 9 at ¶¶ 9, 13 (alleging that 2 United States District Court 1 No. 4:13-cv-4207-KAW, Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 9, 14 (alleging that Twitter infringes the patents by 12 making its Twitter real-time information network product and service); Sprint Nextel Corp., Case 13 No. 3:13-cv-4513-JCS, Docket No. 26 at ¶¶ 9, 14 (alleging that Sprint infringes the patents by 14 making its Sprint CDMA and 4G networks and Sprint Services Framework). There are no 15 allegations that these defendants or products are related in any way. 16 Furthermore, Plaintiff has not addressed whether it appears likely that there will be an unduly 17 burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before 18 different judges. As noted, each of these cases concerns different defendants with different products 19 or services. The bulk of the relevant evidence in patent cases comes from defendants accused of 20 infringement, which will be unique to each defendant. Each case will therefore require a unique 21 inquiry to assess infringement and damages. As a result, “although some validity and inequitable 22 conduct issues would overlap, there would be a plethora of different infringement and damage[s] 23 issues.” Bender v. Exar Corp., Case No. 3:09-cv-1140-WHA, Docket No. 45 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 24 2009) at 1. Because of these differences, it is unlikely that relation would avoid duplication of labor 25 and expense or conflicting results. 26 Accordingly, the motion to relate the above cases is denied. 27 Yelp has stated its non-opposition to “having pre-trial proceedings in all (or some subset of) 28 the cases identified in [the motion] proceed before this court or the Honorable Judge Alsup.” 3 1 Docket No. 81 at 1. There is precedent in this district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in 2 unrelated cases regarding the same patents proceeding before different judges. See Bender, Case 3 No. 3:09-cv-1140-WHA, Docket No. 45 at 1 (declining to relate 24 cases brought by same plaintiff 4 against different defendants with different products, but permitting parties in all cases to stipulate to 5 the court holding coordinated claim construction and invalidity proceedings with the consent of the 6 assigned judge). However, consolidated proceedings would require additional coordination with and 7 consent of the parties in the other cases, which is not ascertainable at this time. The question of 8 coordination may be revisited once the judicial assignments of all of these matters is fully settled. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 8, 2013 12 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?