Olympic Developments AG, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation et al

Filing 78

AMENDED ORDER re 77 Order on Motion to Relate Case. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/20/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2011)

1
2
3
4

D. James Pak (SBN 194331)
Baker & McKenzie LLP
12544 High Bluff Drive, Third Floor
San Diego, CA 92130-3051
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Daniel J. O’Connor (Pro Hac Vice)
Edward K. Runyan (Pro Hac Vice)
Daniel A. Tallitsch (Pro Hac Vice)
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13

Attorneys for Defendant

14

Nintendo of America Inc.

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

OAKLAND DIVISION

18
OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENTS AG, LLC,

Case No. 4:11-cv-00329-SBA

19
Plaintiff,
20
v.
21
NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.,
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASE SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-00329-SBA

AMENDED ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASE
SHOULD BE RELATED

1
2

On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff Olympic Developments AG, LLC (“Olympic”) filed an

3

Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Case Should Be Related. Specifically, Olympic

4

requests that this Court consider whether the instant case should be related to Olympic

5

Developments AG, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment of America, Case No. 3:11-cv-01080-

6

JCS, and Olympic Developments AG, LLC v. Amazon.com, Case No. 3:11-cv-01655-EMC. Case

7

No. 3:11-cv-01655-EMC involves Defendant Apple, Inc. In Case No. 3:11-cv-00329, Defendant

8

Nintendo of America Inc. (“NOA”) filed an Opposition to Olympic’s Motion on April 11, 2011.

9

Having reviewed Olympic’s Motion, NOA’s Opposition, the files and records of this Court,

10

the Court hereby finds that the three cases involve different parties and different accused products,

11

and therefore do not concern substantially the same property, transaction or event as required by

12

LR 3-12(a)(1). Moreover, because the defendants and accused products are different, and because

13

the defendants are likely to have competing interests and strategies, and are entitled to present

14

individualized assaults on questions of non-infringement, invalidity, and claim construction,

15

conducting the cases before different judges is not likely to cause unduly burdensome duplication

16

of labor and expense or potentially conflicting results.

17
18
19

The Court therefore DENIES Olympic’s Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Case
Should Be Related.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Date: 4/20/11
Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
United States Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASE SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-00329-SBA

page 1