Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al
Filing
1278
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING ( (290) in case 4:12-cv-00692-CW; (1223),(1226), (1227) in case 4:05-cv-04063-CW) MOTIONS FOR SEPARATE TRIAL AND/OR BIFURCATION (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
TESSERA, INC.,
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
________________________________/
TESSERA, INC.,
12
13
14
No. C 12-692 CW
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM, INC.,
15
16
No. C 05-04063-CW
Defendant.
________________________________/
17
ORDER DENYING
MOTIONS FOR
SEPARATE TRIAL
AND/OR BIFURCATION
(-4063, Docket
Nos. 1223, 1226,
1227)
(-692, Docket No.
290)
18
19
20
21
Four sets of Defendants remain in these related cases:
(1) STMicroelectronics N.V. (ST-NV) and ST Microelectronics, Inc.
(ST-Inc.)(collectively ST); (2) Advanced Semiconductor
22
23
24
Engineering, Inc. and ASE (U.S.) Inc. (collectively ASE);
(3) ChipMOS Technologies, Inc. and ChipMOS U.S.A., Inc.
25
(collectively
26
trial plan and moves for a separate trial.
27
1223.
28
ChipMos), and (4) Qualcomm, Inc.
ST presents its
-4063, Docket No.
ASE moves for a separate trial and, in the event its motion
1
is denied, requests bifurcation of damages.
-4063, Docket No.
2
1227.
3
consolidated with ASE, but not with ST or one another.
4
Docket No. 290; -4063, Docket No. 1226.
5
request that the Court bifurcate issues of liability from any
6
7
Qualcomm and ChipMos request a trial on liability
trial on damages.
-692,
Qualcomm and ChipMos also
After reviewing the submitted papers, the Court
DENIES without prejudice all motions for separate trials and
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
bifurcation of damages.
Defendants may renew their motions at a
later date.
11
BACKGROUND
12
Tessera first filed its complaint in October 2005 against
13
Advanced Micro and Spansion, two defendants that are no longer
14
parties to this case.
15
-4063, Docket No. 1.
In January 2006
Tessera moved to amend its complaint to add a number of other
16
17
18
Defendants, including ASE, ChipMOS, and ST.
-4063, Docket No. 20.
In April 2007, Tessera filed an action in the Eastern District of
19
Texas (the -692 action); among its defendants was Qualcomm.
20
May 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC)
21
initiated an investigation designated Certain Semiconductor Chips
22
with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (the
23
24
-605 investigation).
investigation.
In
ASE and ChipMos were not parties to the -605
The eventual transfer of the -692 action from the
25
26
27
28
Texas court to this district brought in three additional
Defendants, including Qualcomm.
Two of those Defendants
subsequently settled with Tessera, leaving only Qualcomm.
2
Thus,
1
2
four sets of Defendants remain: ASE, ChipMOS, and ST from the
-4063 action, and Qualcomm from the -692 action.
3
Tessera asserts four claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,852,326 (the
4
‘326 patent) against all Defendants, and asserts one claim of U.S.
5
Patent No. 5,679,977 (the ‘977 patent) against ASE, ChipMOS, and
6
7
STMicro.
The ‘326 and ‘977 patents share the same specification.
In addition to the infringement claims, Tessera also asserts a
8
9
breach of license claim against ASE and ST and a breach of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
confidentiality claim against ST arising out of the licensing
11
relationship.
12
In February 2013 Special Master Legge recommended that “the
13
issue of severance . . . be given consideration substantially in
14
advance of the trial date.”
15
-4063, Docket No. 1164 at 2-3.
the time, the trial was set for April 2014.
At
In March 2013 the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Court postponed the trial to August 2014.
filed its trial plan.
In July 2013 Tessera
Defendants each filed motions for separate
trials and/or bifurcation of damages thereafter.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(b) provides that a court
may order separate trials to protect a party against prejudice.
In addition, the Court has “considerable discretion” to
consolidate separate actions for trial so long as the actions
25
26
“involve a common question of law or fact.”
In re EMC Corp., 677
27
F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
As a practical matter, in
28
addressing such motions, “the same concerns are considered by the
3
1
Court, namely, convenience of the parties, avoiding prejudice, and
2
promoting expedition and economy.”
3
Landes, 1988 WL 56710, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.).
4
5
6
7
Sutton Hill Associates v.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) states, “For
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the
court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues,
claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.”
Fed.
8
9
R. Civ. P. 42(b).
Factors to be considered when ruling on a Rule
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
42(b) motion include complexity of issues, factual proof, risk of
11
jury confusion, difference between the separated issues, the
12
chance that separation will lead to economy in discovery, and the
13
possibility that the first trial may be dispositive of the case.
14
Calmar, Inc. v. Emson Research, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 861, 866 (C.D.
15
Cal. 1994).
A party seeking to bifurcate under Rule 42 has the
16
17
18
burden of showing that bifurcation is justified.
See Spectra-
Physics Lasers, Inc. v. Uniphase Corp., 144 F.R.D. 99, 101 (N.D.
19
Cal. 1992) ("the party seeking bifurcation . . . has the burden of
20
proving that bifurcation is justified given the facts").
21
22
23
24
DISCUSSION
I.
Separate Trials
This Court has been of the view that a single trial of the
claims against all remaining Defendants will be most efficient.
25
26
The claims against these four sets of Defendants involve similar
27
accused packages and allege infringement of the same two patents.
28
Allowing these claims to proceed in four separate trials would
4
1
result in duplicative proceedings and burden the parties, the
2
Court and potential jurors in this district.
3
premature.
4
summary judgment hearing.
5
the court-appointed expert, have not been received.
6
7
These motions are
The Court has not yet held a claim construction and
The expert reports, including that of
Once the
expert reports are received and the claim construction and summary
judgment motions decided, the scope of the trial will be more
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
clear.
Additional settlements may be reached in the meantime.
ASE is concerned that evidence of the result of the ITC
11
investigation would be admitted at a joint trial and would
12
prejudice ASE, which did not participate in the ITC proceeding.
13
ChipMos makes a similar argument.
14
curative instruction could prevent potential prejudice.
15
Tessera responds that a
At this
stage in the litigation, the Court does not decide whether the
16
17
18
19
result of the -605 investigation will be admitted at trial and, if
it is, whether it will prejudice the jury.
The Court notes that the parties allude to multiple experts.
20
The Court’s uniform practice is to allow only one expert per
21
subject matter per side.
22
experts on the same subject with differing opinions, an exception
23
24
If jointly tried Defendants proffer
may be made to allow them.
II. Bifurcation of Damages
25
26
ASE, Qualcomm, and Chipmos request bifurcation of liability
27
and damages.
These Defendants contend that issues of liability
28
involve facts separate and distinct from those relating to issues
5
1
of damages.
In addition, they argue that damages calculations are
2
complex and burdensome, requiring that the jury comprehend, among
3
other things, commercial complexities of the semiconductor market;
4
methodology regarding the calculation of damages; and legal
5
principles regarding royalty rates and patent license
6
7
negotiations.
Tessera responds that the bulk of the testimony of
its damages expert will be the same as to each Defendant,
8
9
describing the methodology of his analysis and the basis for the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
reasonable royalty rate.
11
trial, the Court finds that, at this stage in the litigation,
12
judicial economy weighs in favor of denying without prejudice ASE,
13
Qualcomm, and Chipmos’s motions to bifurcate.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
As with the motions for a separate
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
27
28
6
CONCLUSION
1
2
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES without
3
prejudice Defendants’ motions for a separate trial and, in the
4
alternative, to bifurcate.
5
motions after the Court issues its order following the Markman and
6
7
summary judgment hearing.
Defendants may renew all of these
The Court also advises the following:
1. Each side is limited to one expert per subject matter.
8
9
2. To the extent that experts are used in the claim
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
construction and summary judgment briefs, any Daubert
11
motions shall be included within the parties’ joint briefs
12
on those issues.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
Dated: 11/13/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?