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
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?