U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

Filing 851

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 754 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS SILICON INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, INC. AND ORACLE CORPORATION AND GRANTING SILICON INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CORPORATIONS 731 MOTION TO DISMISS AND QUASH. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

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.,

No. C 10-3724 CW
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO
ASSERT CLAIMS
AGAINST THIRD
PARTY DEFENDANTS
SILICON INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS, INC. AND
ORACLE CORPORATION
(Docket No. 754)
AND GRANTING
SILICON INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS
CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
AND QUASH (Docket
No. 731)

Defendants,
INTEL CORPORATION; NVIDIA
CORPORATION; MARVELL
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATHEROS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and
BROADCOM CORPORATION,

17

Intervenors.

18

________________________________/

19
Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (USEI) moves for
20
leave to assert claims alleging infringement of United States
21
Patent Nos. 5,307,459, 5,434,872, 5,732,094, and 5,299,313 against
22
Third Party Defendants Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation
23
(SiS) and Oracle Corporation.

Oracle opposes the motion.

SiS has

24
not filed a response to the motion.

Silicon Integrated Systems

25
Corporation (Taiwan) (SIS-TW) moves to dismiss the third party
26
complaint filed against it by Third-Party Plaintiffs ASUSTek
27
28

1

Computer Inc. (ASUSTek) and ASUS Computer International (ACI).

2

ASUSTek and ACI oppose SiS-TW’s motion.

3

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES USEI’s

4

motion and GRANTS SiS-TW’s motion.

5

I.

6
7

SiS-TW’s motion to dismiss
A. Personal jurisdiction
Under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

8

a defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

9

The plaintiff then bears the burden of demonstrating that the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

court has jurisdiction.

11

374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).

12

plaintiff “need only demonstrate facts that if true would support

13

jurisdiction over the defendant.”

14

1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995).

15

complaint must be taken as true.

16

Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996).

17

not assume the truth of such allegations if they are contradicted

18

by affidavit.

19

Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977).

20

submits admissible evidence, conflicts in the evidence must be

21

resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.

22

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
To satisfy this burden, the

Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d

Uncontroverted allegations in the
AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles
However, the court may

Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs.,
If the plaintiff also

AT&T, 94 F.3d at 588.

There are two independent limitations on a court’s power to

23

exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: the

24

applicable state personal jurisdiction rule and constitutional

25

principles of due process.

26

(9th Cir. 1990); Data Disc, Inc., 557 F.2d at 1286.

27

California’s jurisdictional statute is co-extensive with federal

28

due process requirements, jurisdictional inquiries under state law

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361

2

Because

1

and federal due process standards merge into one analysis.

2

v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580, 587 (9th Cir. 1993).

3

Rano

The exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant

4

violates the protections created by the due process clause unless

5

the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum

6

state that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend

7

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

8

Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

9

Int’l

Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ASUSTek and ACI assert that both exist here.

11

exists when the defendant maintains significant contacts with the

12

forum state, even if the cause of action is unrelated to those

13

contacts.

14

U.S. 408, 414 (1984).

15

when the cause of action arises out of the defendant’s contacts

16

with the forum state, even if those contacts are isolated and

17

sporadic.

18
19

General jurisdiction

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466
Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, exists

Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287.
1. General jurisdiction

“‘A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign

20

(sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all

21

claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so

22

“continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home

23

in the forum State.’”

24

647 F.3d 1218, 1223-1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop

25

Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)).

26

“For general jurisdiction to exist, a defendant must engage in

27

‘continuous and systematic general business contacts’ . . . that

28

‘approximate physical presence’ in the forum state . . . .”

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.,

3

Id.

at 1223-24 (internal citations omitted).

2

“exacting” one and “is met only by ‘continuous corporate

3

operations within a state [that are] thought so substantial and of

4

such a nature as to justify suit against [the defendant] on causes

5

of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those

6

activities.’”

7

original).

8

contacts are sufficiently substantial, continuous, and systematic,

9

we consider their ‘[l]ongevity, continuity, volume, economic

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

impact, physical presence, and integration into the state’s

11

regulatory or economic markets.’”

12

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

13

Ninth Circuit has observed that the “Supreme Court has found

14

general personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in

15

only one case.”

16

Co., 342 U.S. 437, 447-48 (1952)).

17

The standard is an

Id. at 1224 (citation omitted, (alterations in

“To determine whether a nonresident defendant’s

Id. (quoting Tuazon v. R.J.
The

Id. (citing Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining

SiS-TW asserts that it is a Taiwanese corporation and is a

18

separate legal entity than Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation

19

(USA) (SiS-USA).

20

personal jurisdiction over it based simply on the relationship

21

between it and SiS-USA, which is a California corporation.1

It argues that the Court is unable to assert

22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The Court notes that ASUSTek and ACI have not brought
claims against SiS-USA in their third party complaint. In their
pleading, ASUSTek and ACI have asserted claims against a single
party, “Silicon Integrated Systems Corp.,” which they allege to be
a “Taiwanese company with a principal place of business” in
Taiwan. Third-Party Compl. ¶ 5. They allege that this entity “is
registered in California to do business,” id. at ¶ 6, but do not
purport to bring claims against a California company.
4

1

SiS-TW has filed a declaration attesting to the following
facts, among others.

3

it does not have an office in California and it does not have any

4

employees, officers, directors or managing agents located in

5

California or elsewhere in the United States.

6

6.

7

mailing address in California or the United States.

8

7.

9

California or the United States, does not have assets or service

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

locations in those areas and does not sell the products at issue

11

there.

Its operations are based solely in Taiwan,

Chen Decl. ¶¶ 3-4,

It is not registered to do business and does not have a
Id. at ¶¶ 5,

It does not own property, pay taxes or file tax returns in

Id. at ¶¶ 9-12.

12

SiS-TW attests that it entered into a purchase order

13

agreement with ASUSTeK, which is also a Taiwanese company, in

14

Taiwan, and sold and delivered its products to ASUSTeK there or in

15

China.

16

states that it has no control or direction over where ASUSTeK

17

sells its products and that, while it “is aware that ASUSTeK sells

18

its products worldwide including the United States in general,

19

SiS-TW has no knowledge as to where ASUSTeK specifically sells its

20

products in the United States.”

21

Id. at ¶¶ 13-14, 21; Third-Party Compl. ¶ 5.

It also

Chen Decl. ¶ 16.

As to its relationship with SiS-USA, SiS-TW states that it

22

“is the grandparent organization of SiS-USA in a chain of

23

companies,” specifically that SiS-USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary

24

of a Cayman Islands company that is in turn a wholly-owned

25

subsidiary of SiS-TW.

26

entities maintain separate business records, external CPAs and

27

bank accounts.

Id. at ¶ 27.

Id. at ¶ 28.

28
5

It attests that the two

1

ASUSTeK and ACI do not contest “that a subsidiary’s contacts

2

with California do not, standing alone, confer jurisdiction on a

3

parent corporation” but contend that SIS-TW has “taken over the

4

role of the US entity” and now has sufficient minimum contacts

5

with California to support the exercise of general jurisdiction.

6

Docket No. 782, 2.

7

the parent and subsidiary are not really separate entities, or one

8

acts as an agent of the other, the local subsidiary’s contacts

9

with the forum may be imputed to the foreign parent corporation.’”

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that, “‘if

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 926 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

11

El-Fadl v. Central Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 676 (D.C. Cir.

12

1996)).

13

parental control of the subsidiary’s internal affairs or daily

14

operations.”

15

Ltd., 628 F.2d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 1980)).

“An alter ego or agency relationship is typified by

Id. (citing Kramer Motors, Inc. v. British Leyland,

16

ASUSTeK and ACI state that, in an answer filed in the Eastern

17

District of Texas last year, SiS-TW “admitted” that “[o]n November

18

18, 2008, SIS America decided to discontinue operations in the

19

United States; since then, SIS Taiwan has assumed responsibility

20

for United States sales.”

21

5).

22

report for itself and its subsidiaries and that an officer of the

23

American entity was a named inventor on seven United States

24

patents that were assigned to the Taiwanese entity.

25

Brigham Decl., Exs. 1-4).

26

Opp. at 2 (citing Brigham Decl., Ex.

They also assert that SiS-TW has filed a joint financial

Id. (citing

These facts are not sufficient to show that SiS-TW maintained

27

“continuous and systematic” business operations in California or

28

that SiS-US is the agent or alter-ego of SiS-TW.
6

See Doe, 248

1

F.3d at 926-29 (explaining the requirements to show that an agency

2

or alter-ego relationship).

3

ASUSTeK and ACI have not met their burden to show that it has

4

general jurisdiction over SiS-TW.

5

2. Specific jurisdiction

6

Accordingly, the Court finds that

Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises

7

out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, even if

8

those contacts are isolated and sporadic.

9

1287.

Data Disc, 557 F.2d at

Courts in this circuit use a three-prong test to determine

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

whether they may assert specific jurisdiction in a particular

11

case: (1) the foreign defendant must purposefully direct its

12

activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or a

13

resident thereof, or perform some act by which it purposefully

14

avails itself of the privilege of conducting business in the

15

forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

16

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the

17

defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of

18

jurisdiction must be reasonable.

19

1421 (9th Cir. 1987).

20

to assert jurisdiction.

21

Cruz, 649 F.2d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 1981).

22

Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416,

Each of these conditions must be satisfied
Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Marina Salina

ASUSTeK and ACI have not met their burden to meet the

23

purposeful direction or availment prong of this test.

24

“the Taiwan entity has admitted it is responsible for the US

25

entity’s previous sales activities through the United States.”

26

Docket No. 782, 7.

27

that it took responsibility for previous sales activity.

28

it has admitted that, since SiS-US discontinued its United States

This is not correct.

7

They assert

SiS-TW did not admit
Instead,

1

operations in 2008, SIS-TW had assumed responsibility for United

2

States sales.

3

any United States sales activity during that period or that any

4

such activity took place within California.

5

3. Jurisdictional discovery

6
7

ASUSTeK and ACI request permission to pursue jurisdictional
discovery.

8
9

However, there is no evidence that there have been

SiS-TW opposes the request.

Jurisdictional “discovery should ordinarily be granted where
pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is

11

necessary.”

Laub v. United States DOI, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th

12

Cir. 2003).

“[W]here a plaintiff’s claim of personal jurisdiction

13

appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the

14

face of specific denials made by the defendants, the Court need

15

not permit even limited discovery . . . .”

16

Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Terracom v.

17

Valley Nat. Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995)).

18

Pebble Beach Co. v.

While there is not presently evidence of ongoing sales, in

19

light of SiS-TW’s admitted assumption of responsibility for United

20

States sales in 2008, jurisdictional discovery is appropriate

21

here.

22
23

Accordingly, ASUSTeK and ACI’s request is granted.
B. Sufficiency of service
SiS-TW further moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) on the

24

basis that it was not properly served with the third party

25

complaint.

26

A federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant

27

if service of process is insufficient.

28

Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).
8

Omni Capital Int’l v.
A court may dismiss

1

the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5).

2

service is challenged, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing

3

that service was valid under Rule 4.”

4

798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 4A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.

5

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1083 (3d ed. 2002 & Supp.

6

2003)).

7

“Once

Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d

The certificate of service shows that ASUSTeK and ACI served

8

Isabel Chiu by personal service on January 23, 2013.

9

684.

Docket No.

SiS-TW attests that Ms. Chiu is the registered agent for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

service of process in the California for SiS-US, that she is not

11

authorized to accept service on behalf of SiS-TW, that she has

12

never had any relationship with SiS-TW and that it does not have

13

an authorized agent for service of process within the state.

14

Decl. ¶¶ 22-25.

15

Chiu

ASUSTeK and ACI assert, without any citation to supporting

16

authority, that, because “SiS took the place of its California

17

subsidiary,” service upon the subsidiary’s registered agent

18

constituted sufficient service.

19

assuming that such service could under some circumstances be

20

proper, SiS-TW did not “take the place of” SIS-US; instead, it

21

assumed responsibility for United States sales after 2008.

22

Docket No. 782.

However, even

“Where service of process is insufficient, the court has the

23

option of dismissing the action or quashing the service and

24

retaining the case.”

25

LEXIS 37881, at *7 (N.D. Cal.) (citation omitted).

26

service will be quashed in those cases in which there is a

27

reasonable prospect that the plaintiff will be able to serve the

28

defendant properly.”

O’Haire v. Napa State Hosp., 2010 U.S. Dist.
“Generally

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
9

1

omitted).

2

that ASUSTeK and ACI will be able to serve SiS-TW properly.

3

the Court quashes service but does not dismiss the third party

4

complaint at this time.

5

C. Claims by ACI

6

Here, it appears that there is a reasonable prospect
Thus,

Finally, SiS-TW argues that the indemnity claims by ACI

7

should be dismissed because ACI was not a party to the purchase

8

agreement and cannot enforce any rights under the agreement.

9

ACI does not dispute that it was not a signatory to the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

agreement.

11

subsidiary of ASUSTeK, as alleged in the third party complaint,

12

and that it is responsible for sales and distribution of ASUSTeK’s

13

products in the United States, which was not alleged in the third

14

party complaint.

15

indemnity provision because that provision states in relevant

16

part,

17
18
19
20
21

Instead, it contends that it was a wholly owned

It contends that it is thus able to enforce the

“If Asustek suffers from any prosecution, claim,
allegation, appeal, request, action or other legal
procedures because the supplier breaches the above
guarantees, the supplier shall agree to defend Asustek
and its directors, executives, employees, successors,
assignees, agents and clients and compensate them for
any loss, damage, responsibility and expenses incurred
thereby (including reasonable attorney fees and legal
fees).”

22

Brigham Decl., Ex. 8.

23

beneficiary of the agreement.

24

under this provision or may be a third party beneficiary of the

25

agreement, it has not plead facts sufficient to allege such a

26

conclusion at this time.

ASI also contends that it is a third party
However, although ASI may fall

27
28
10

1

Accordingly, the Court grants SiS-TW’s motion to dismiss

2

ACI’s claims.

3

the complaint to resolve this deficiency.

4

II.

This dismissal is without prejudice to ACI amending

USEI’s motion for leave to file

5

A. Background

6

On January 17, 2013, the Court granted ASUSTek and ACI leave

7

to file a third-party complaint against SiS.

8

their motion and proposed third-party complaint, they had alleged

9

that SiS sold them products that they then incorporated into their

Docket No. 679.

In

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

own goods and that SiS’s products provide the functionality in

11

their goods that USEI was accusing of infringing its patents.

12

USEI had opposed the motion for leave, arguing that impleader of

13

SiS would unnecessarily complicate issues at trial.

14

On February 5, 2013, Defendant Apple, Inc. filed a motion for

15

leave to file a third party complaint against Oracle.

16

asserted that USEI had accused “certain Apple products of

17

infringing the patents-in-suit based on their use of Ethernet

18

technology supplied by Sun Microsystems,” which was subsequently

19

acquired by Oracle.

20

Apple

Docket No. 685.

On February 19, 2013, the Court entered a scheduling order

21

requiring that “any party who wishes to add a party or claims”

22

must “file a motion seeking leave to do so” by March 14, 2013.

23

Docket No. 691.

24

Thereafter, USEI moved for leave to assert claims against

25

SiS, as well as against Oracle and any other third parties that

26

the Court allowed into the related cases.

27
28

On April 18, 2013, the Court granted Apple’s motion and
denied USEI’s motion.

Docket No. 734.
11

The Court noted that USEI

1

had not stated “what claims it would like to assert against these

2

parties” and had failed to submit “a proposed amended complaint

3

setting forth the claims it seeks to bring against any of these

4

parties” as required by the Civil Local Rules.

5

specified, “This denial is without prejudice to USEI filing a

6

renewed motion for leave to amend to assert claims against these

7

parties, provided that it attaches its proposed amended pleading

8

to any such motion.”

9

The Court

Id. at 7.

B. Legal standard

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a

11

scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the

12

judge’s consent.”

13

ability to amend its pleading is governed by this good cause

14

standard, not the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a)(2).

15

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992).

16

In order to determine whether good cause exists, courts primarily

17

consider the diligence of the party seeking the modification.

18

at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

19

(9th Cir. 2000).

Where a schedule has been ordered, a party’s

Johnson

Id.

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave of

21

the court allowing a party to amend its pleading “shall be freely

22

given when justice so requires.”

23

when assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: undue

24

delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, prejudice to the opposing

25

party and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the

26

complaint.

27

1055 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009).

Courts consider five factors

Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051,

28
12

1

C. Discussion

2

In its motion, USEI did not attempt to show that its proposed

3

amendment would satisfy the requirements of either Rule 15 or 16.

4

In its opposition, Oracle argues that it would be prejudiced by

5

the proposed amendment, that USEI has unjustifiably delayed in the

6

seeking leave to assert claims against Oracle and that USEI has

7

previously amended its complaint.

8
9

Even applying the more lenient Rule 15 standard, the Court
finds that Oracle has met its burden to show that USEI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

unreasonably delayed in bringing it into this litigation and that

11

Oracle was prejudiced as a result of this delay.

12

Oracle points out that, by April 2010, USEI knew that it was

13

challenging Oracle’s technology, because at that time, USEI

14

purportedly served Apple with supplemental infringement

15

contentions that identified Oracle Ethernet technology,

16

specifically the “Sun GEM Ethernet Controller Family,”

17

incorporated into certain Apple products as the bases for its

18

alleged infringement.

19

contentions against Oracle now would be unduly prejudicial

20

because, among other things, it would be deprived of the

21

opportunity to participate in the claim construction proceedings

22

that have already taken place and the dispositive summary judgment

23

that is now pending.

24

Specifically,

Allowing USEI to assert infringement

USEI argues that it acted quickly to add Oracle to the case

25

once “the possibility of Oracle joining the litigation arose” when

26

Apple filed its motion to bring indemnification claims against

27

Oracle and asserts that Oracle could have intervened in the case

28

to protect its interests.

However, USEI does not dispute that it
13

1

was aware of the factual basis for the claims that it seeks to

2

assert more than two years before it made any attempt to add

3

Oracle to this litigation.

4

affirmatively sought to be part of this litigation does not excuse

5

USEI’s unreasonable delay.

6

That Oracle could hypothetically have

USEI further contends that any possible issue of prejudice

7

that would result from adding Oracle has already been resolved

8

because the Court permitted Apple to assert claims against it.

9

However, as Oracle points out, the claims presently asserted

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

against it by Apple do not implicate all of the claims that USEI

11

seeks to make now.

12

that it seeks to accuse more of Oracle’s products than those

13

associated with already-accused Apple products.

14

Oracle is now a party to this action, it is not presently involved

15

in all issues raised in this case.

16

sold Apple Ethernet technology that USEI is now accusing of

17

infringement.

18

Oracle is required to pay for Apple’s defense costs and any

19

potential settlement or judgment in this case and whether Apple’s

20

indemnification claim is barred based on one of Oracle’s various

21

defenses, such as estoppel, laches and breach of contract based on

22

Apple’s failure to provide it with reasonably prompt notice of

23

USEI’s infringement claims.

24

infringement allegations asserted directly against Oracle.

25

Accordingly, the Court denies the USEI’s motion to assert claims

26

against Oracle.

For instance, USEI is very clear in its reply

Further, although

Oracle has admitted that it

The issue between Oracle and Apple is whether

These claims are very different than

27

Finally, USEI moves to assert claims against “Silicon

28

Integrated Systems Corporation,” which it alleges is a company
14

1

organized and existing under the laws of California.

2

Second Am. Compl. ¶ 14.

3

SiS-USA is dependent on it already being a party to this case as a

4

result of the third party complaint.

5

SiS-USA was not named as a defendant in the third party complaint.

6

Further, the Court has granted the motion to dismiss the third

7

party complaint against SiS-TW, the only SiS entity that was named

8

in that pleading.

9

leave to assert claims against SiS-USA.

Proposed

USEI’s motion to assert claims against

However, as noted above,

Accordingly, the Court denies USEI’s motion for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES USEI’s

12

motion for leave to assert claims against Oracle and SiS-USA and

13

GRANTS SiS-TW’s motion to quash and dismiss.

14

ASUSTeK and ASI are granted leave to file an amended third

15

party complaint within seven days of the date of this Order and

16

shall serve it within twenty-one days thereafter.

17

is effectuated, and provided that it is not quashed, they may

18

engage in limited jurisdictional discovery with SiS.

19

This Order resolves Docket Nos. 754 and 731.

20

After service

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: 8/7/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
15