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

Filing 942

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken SEVERING THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.S CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT ORACLE AMERICA, INC. AND STAYING THE ACTION UNTIL THE UNDERLYING CASE IS RESOLVED. (terminating 939 Stipulation) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

No. C 10-3724 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER SEVERING
THIRD-PARTY
PLAINTIFF APPLE
INC.’S CLAIMS
AGAINST THIRDPARTY DEFENDANT
ORACLE AMERICA,
INC. AND STAYING
THE ACTION UNTIL
THE UNDERLYING
CASE IS RESOLVED
(Docket No. 939)

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

17

Intervenors.

18

________________________________/

19
On December 13, 2013, Third-Party Plaintiff Apple, Inc.
20
(Apple) and Third-Party Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (Oracle)
21
submitted a joint request to stay the third-party action between
22
Apple and Oracle until the underlying action between Apple and
23
U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (USEI) is resolved.

Because the

24
indemnification claims in the third-party action rest heavily on
25
the outcome of the underlying action, the Court agrees that such a
26
stay would serve the interests of judicial economy.

The Court

27
additionally finds that severance of the third-party action is
28

1

appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14.

2

Civ. P. 14(4)(“Any party may move to strike the third-party claim,

3

to sever it, or to try it separately”); Id. Advisory Committee

4

Notes (“the court has discretion to strike the third-party claim

5

if it ... can only delay or prejudice the disposition of the

6

plaintiff’s claim ... or accord it separate trial if confusion or

7

prejudice would otherwise result”).

8

Inc. v. Rozay's Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986).

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(1)

See Fed. R.

See also Sw. Administrators,

The third-party action between Apple and Oracle shall be

11

severed from the underlying action.

12

Court shall assign a new case number to the third party

13

action and transfer the third-party complaint,

14

counterclaim complaint, and any accompanying answers to

15

the new action’s docket.

16

assigned to the undersigned and shall not result in

17

statistical credit.

18

(2)

The Clerk of the

The new action shall remain

Apple’s claims and Oracle’s counterclaims shall be

19

stayed completely in the new action, pending resolution

20

of the underlying action.

21

use the stipulation or stay to avoid discovery

22

propounded by Apple related to the patent infringement

23

claims in the underlying action.

24
25
26
27
28
2

Oracle shall not, however,

1

(3)

As provided in their stipulation, neither Apple nor

2

Oracle waive any rights, remedies, claims by stipulating

3

to the stay; all such rights, remedies, and claims are

4

preserved.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated:

12/18/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3