Yufa v. TSI Incorporated
Filing
273
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying without prejudice TSI's 267 Renewed Motion to Compel Assignment of Patents to Receiver. TSI may filed a second renewed motion once the appeal is resolved. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
TSI INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:09-cv-01315-KAW
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TSI'S RENEWED
MOTION TO COMPEL ASSIGNMENT
OF PATENTS TO RECEIVER
Re: Dkt. No. 267
12
13
On June 22, 2017, the Court denied Aleksandr L. Yufa’s ex parte application requesting an
14
order directing Defendant TSI Incorporated to file its forthcoming motion to compel the
15
assignment of patents to the appointed receiver by a certain deadline (Dkt. No. 253). (6/22/17
16
Order, Dkt. No. 262.) In the same order, the Court granted TSI’s motion to approve the
17
instructions for the administration of the court-appointed receiver Greyhound IP LLC (Dkt. No.
18
256). Id. at 1-2. Therein, the Court ordered that:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Greyhound, or its acquirer, Houlihan Lokey, with offices at
One Sansome Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94104 shall
swear to perform the duties of receiver faithfully pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure § 567.
2. Greyhound shall have all of the powers and authority usually
held by receivers and reasonably necessary to value the
Receivership Property unless otherwise stated, without further order
of the Court.
3. Greyhound shall have the right to apply to this Court for
further instructions or directions.
4. Greyhound shall be entitled to be paid without prior Court
approval, at the rate of $400.00 per hour, not to exceed $40,000.00.
Greyhound’s compensation for valuing the Receivership Property
shall be paid directly by the Defendant. Upon approval of the Court,
any sums paid by Defendant to Greyhound shall be added to the
judgment after Greyhound has provided its final declaration or
report to the Court regarding the value of the Receivership Property.
1
5. Plaintiff, as well as his agents or representatives, shall
cooperate with all requests of Greyhound and are enjoined from
interfering with Greyhound’s performance of its duties hereunder.
2
3
6. Greyhound shall faithfully perform and discharge its duties
and obey the Court’s orders.
4
5
(6/22/17 Order at 2-3.) On July 7, 2017, Dr. Yufa filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit
6
appealing the denial of his ex parte application and Order Nos. 4 and 5, above. (Dkt. No. 263.)
On September 5, 2017, while the appeal was pending, TSI filed a renewed motion to
7
8
compel assignment of patents to the receiver. (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 267.)
On October 2, 2017, the Federal Circuit directed the parties to address whether the court
9
had jurisdiction or whether the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 272 at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
1.) The Federal Circuit lifted the stay of the proceedings, and ordered Dr. Yufa to file his opening
12
brief within 30 days. Id. at 2. Dr. Yufa filed his opening brief on October 23, 2017. Yufa v. TSI,
13
Incorporated, Case No. 2017-2282 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2017), ECF No. 19. According to the
14
docket, TSI’s response brief is due on December 13, 2017, and Dr. Yufa’s reply is due on
15
December 18, 2017. Yufa v. TSI, Incorporated, Case No. 2017-2282 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2017),
16
ECF No. 25.
TSI’s obtained a judgment in the amount of $166,364.88 against Dr. Yufa on September 3,
17
18
2014. (Dkt. No. 205.) Pursuant to the June 22, 2017 order, Greyhound’s fees may not exceed
19
$40,000, which “shall be added to the judgment after Greyhound has provided its final declaration
20
or report to the Court regarding the value of the Receivership Property.” (6/22/17 Order at 2.)
21
Therefore, the total maximum judgment is $206,464.88.
In its renewed motion, TSI represents that Greyhound appraised the aggregate value of all
22
23
of the patents to be between $129,000 and $198,000. (Def.’s Mot. at 3; Decl. of Mitchell
24
Rosenfeld, Dkt. No. 268 ¶¶ 3-7, Ex. A.) Thus, in the event that that the inclusion of sums paid to
25
Greyhound were found improper on appeal, the potential valuation of the patents would exceed
26
the amount of the judgment. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, the Court DENIES
27
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s renewed motion to compel the assignment of patents to the
28
///
2
1
2
3
receiver. TSI may file a second renewed motion once the appeal is resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?