Zions Bancorporation v. U.S. Ethernet Innovations LLC

Filing 155

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenGRANTING DEFENDANTS ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. AND ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONALS ( 654 in case no. 4:10-cv-03724-CW ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST SILICON INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CORP. AND DENYING DEFENDANTS SONY CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SONY ELECTRONICS INC.S ( 672 in case no. 4:10-cv-03724-CW) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ZIONS BANCORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

v.
U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Defendant.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

________________________________/
U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
ACER, INC.; ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION; APPLE, INC.; ASUS
COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL; ASUSTEK
COMPUTER, INC.; DELL, INC.;
FUJITSU, LTD.; FUJITSU AMERICA,
INC.; GATEWAY, INC.; HEWLETT
PACKARD CO.; SONY CORPORATION;
SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SONY
ELECTRONICS INC.; TOSHIBA
CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA,
INC.; and TOSHIBA AMERICA
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.
INTEL CORPORATION; NVIDIA
CORPORATION; MARVELL
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATHEROS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and
BROADCOM CORPORATION,

23

Intervenors.

24

________________________________/

25
26
27
28

No. C 10-3481 CW

No. C 10-3724 CW

1

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

15
16

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS ASUSTEK
COMPUTER INC. AND
ASUS COMPUTER
INTERNATIONAL’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A THIRDPARTY COMPLAINT
AGAINST SILICON
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
CORP. (Docket No.
654 in 10-3724)
AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS SONY
CORPORATION, SONY
CORPORATION OF
AMERICA AND SONY
ELECTRONICS INC.’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docket No. 672 in
10-3724)

v.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC; BARNES &
NOBLE, INC.; CLAIRE’S BOUTIQUES,
INC.; J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.;
SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS, INC.; ANN
TAYLOR STORES CORPORATION; ANN
TAYLOR RETAIL, INC.; HARLEYDAVIDSON, INC.; HARLEY-DAVIDSON
MOTOR COMPANY, INC.; KIRKLAND’S
INC.; KIRKLAND’S STORES, INC.;
MACY’S, INC.; MACY’S RETAIL
HOLDINGS, INC.; MACY’S WEST
STORES, INC.; NEW YORK & COMPANY,
INC.; LERNER NEW YORK, INC.;
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION; RENT-ACENTER, INC.; and THE DRESS BARN,
INC.,
Defendants.

13
14

No. C 10-5254 CW

________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS AND
COUNTERCLAIMS
________________________________/

Defendants ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer
17
International (collectively, ASUS) seek leave to file a third18
party complaint against Silicon Integrated System Corporation
19
(SiS).

Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America

20
and Sony Electronics, Inc. (collectively, Sony) also move for
21
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the October 6, 2011
22
order granting USEI leave to amend its infringement contentions
23
to, among other things, identify additional accused products,
24
which Sony contends were products containing network chips
25
supplied by Silicon Integrated Solutions, Inc.1

Plaintiff U.S.

26
27
28

1

Sony asserts that this is the same entity at issue in
ASUS’s motion for leave. See Docket No. 672, 5. For the purposes
of this Order, the Court accepts this assertion as true.
2

1

Ethernet Innovations, Inc. (USEI) opposes both motions.

2

considered the papers filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS

3

ASUS’s motion and DENIES Sony’s motion.

4

I.

5

Having

ASUS’s Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, a defendant

6

may “serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be

7

liable to it for all or part of the claim against it,” provided

8

that it first obtains leave of the court if it is more than

9

fourteen days after it served its original answer.

Fed. R. Civ.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Pro. 14(a)(1).

11

defendant is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial

12

court.”

13

777 (9th Cir. 1986).

14

typically considers several factors, including (1) prejudice to

15

the original plaintiff; (2) complication of issues at trial;

16

(3) likelihood of trial delay; and (4) timeliness of the motion to

17

implead.”

18

at *3 (N.D. Cal.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

19

“The purpose of this rule is to promote judicial efficiency by

20

eliminating the necessity for the defendant to bring a separate

21

action against a third individual who may be secondarily or

22

derivatively liable to the defendant for all or part of the

23

plaintiff’s original claim.”

24

“The decision whether to implead a third-party

Southwest Adm’rs, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d 769,
“In exercising this discretion, the court

Joe Hand Prods. v. Davis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172299,

Southwest Adm’rs, 791 F.2d at 777.

ASUS seeks to implead SiS.

ASUS alleges that SiS sold it

25

products that ASUS then incorporated into its own goods and that

26

SiS’s products provide the functionality in ASUS’s goods that USEI

27

accuses of infringing its patents.

28

into an indemnity agreement with SiS that contractually obliges
3

ASUS contends that it entered

1

SiS to defend and indemnify ASUS against any claims that products

2

supplied by SiS infringe the intellectual property rights of

3

another.

4

against SiS for breach of contract and breach of warranty of title

5

and warranty against infringement.

6

ASUS’s proposed third party complaint asserts claims

USEI opposes ASUS’s motion on the grounds that the motion is
not timely and that permitting impleader would unnecessarily

8

complicate issues at trial.

9

instant case, it cannot be said that any delay by ASUS weighs

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

heavily against impleader because discovery has been largely

11

stayed pending claim construction and resolution of case

12

management issues upon reassignment.

13

impleader here would not delay trial or otherwise negatively

14

affect any deadlines already established in these cases, and USEI

15

does not contend that it would be prejudiced by impleader of SiS.

16

Finally, the indemnity claims that ASUS seeks to assert here,

17

which arise out of its relationship with its chip supplier, are

18

not “tangentially” related to the claims USEI has asserted against

19

ASUS and the other Defendants, as in the case cited by USEI, Zero

20

Tolerance Entm’t, Inc. v. Ferguson, 254 F.R.D. 123, 126 (C.D. Cal.

21

2008), but rather are derivative of those claims and implicate

22

matters already at issue in these cases.

23

GRANTS ASUS’s motion (Docket No. 654 in 10-3724).

24

its third-party complaint within three days of the date of this

25

Order and shall serve it upon SiS as soon as possible.

26

II.

27
28

However, under the facts of the

Further, permitting

Accordingly, the Court
ASUS shall file

Sony’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may ask a court to

reconsider an interlocutory order if it can specifically show,
4

1

among other things, that “at the time of the motion for leave, a

2

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

3

presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for

4

which reconsideration is sought.”

5

Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(1).

Sony seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

6

Court’s October 6, 2011 order, in which it granted USEI permission

7

to amend its infringement contentions to identify products that

8

incorporated chips Sony obtained from SiS.

9

shortly after the Court originally issued that order, Sony sought

On October 17, 2011,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

leave to file a motion for reconsideration, making the same

11

arguments it raises here almost verbatim.

12

October 19, 2011, the Court denied Sony’s motion for leave,

13

stating that it was “not warranted at this time,” and that, in

14

“granting Plaintiff leave to amend its Infringement contentions,

15

the Court explicitly found that Plaintiff had demonstrated good

16

cause.”

17

Docket No. 567.

On

Docket No. 571, 2.

Sony has not offered any reason that the Court should

18

reconsider the October 19, 2011 order denying its first motion for

19

leave to file a motion for reconsideration and has not offered any

20

argument that was not before the Court at the time of that order.

21

Contrary to Sony’s suggestion, the Court did not suggest that

22

reconsideration might be warranted in the future.

23

USEI opposed ASUS’s motion for leave to file a third-party

24

complaint against SiS does not constitute a material difference in

25

fact that warrants reconsideration of the October 6, 2011 order.

26

That the Court has now granted ASUS permission to implead SiS,

27

thereby making it a party to these cases, substantially undermines

28

Sony’s contention that USEI should not be permitted to accuse
5

Further, that

1

products that incorporate a network chip obtained from a chip

2

supplier that is not party to the case.

3
4
5

Accordingly, Sony’s motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration is DENIED (Docket No. 672 in 10-3724).
The parties in each of the above-captioned cases are reminded

6

that Civil Local Rule 7-9(c) mandates that parties may not file a

7

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration that repeats

8

oral or written arguments that it previously raised in connection

9

with an earlier order that it seeks to have reconsidered, and that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

parties who file such repetitive motions in the future will be

11

subject to sanctions.

12

CONCLUSION

13

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS ASUS’s

14

motion for leave to file a third-party complaint (Docket No. 654

15

in 10-3724) and DENIES Sony’s motion for leave to file a motion

16

for reconsideration (Docket No. 672 in 10-3724).

17

its third-party complaint within three days of the date of this

18

Order and shall serve it upon SiS as soon as possible.

19

ASUS shall file

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: 1/17/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
6