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