Fernandez v. Blackboard, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE CASES. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/16/11. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DENNIS FERNANDEZ,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 11-04491 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO RELATE CASES

ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
/

16

Having considered the administrative motion to consider whether four separate

17

patent-infringement cases are related to the above-captioned case, this order finds that they are

18

not. While all these actions involve one or more patents owned by plaintiff Fernandez, they

19

concern five different defendants each with different accused products.

20

The infringement issues will vary from defendant to defendant because their products,

21

though similar, undoubtedly implement different functionalities and work in different ways.

22

Additionally, the damages issues, willfulness issues, time frames, accused conduct, and discovery

23

issues will obviously vary from defendant to defendant.

24

It is true that patent claims asserted in the instant action are also asserted against the other

25

defendants, in addition to other patent claims not asserted here. At most, this means that some

26

claim construction issues will overlap. While it would be nice to have an identical set of

27

elaborations on the asserted claims for each accused infringer, even that may not be practical, for

28

1

the differences in the accused products will provoke differences in which words and slants in the

2

claim language really matter. These differences will lead one defendant to focus entirely upon the

3

meaning of certain words or phrases in a claim and another defendant to focus entirely on

4

different words or phrases even though they are in the same claim. In other words, the

5

claim-construction work likely will not be the same for all defendants, even if they are facing trial

6

on the same claims. The claim-construction work must be adapted to the actual issues being

7

litigated over the varying accused acts. In short, relating the actions would not avoid duplication

8

of labor nor substantially reduce the risk of inconsistent results.

Plaintiff seeks to relate actions against Microsoft Corporation and against Sony Computer

11
For the Northern District of California

Moreover, the other actions involve other patents not asserted in the instant action.

10

United States District Court

9

Entertainment America LLC (Case Nos. 11-4974 and 11-4973, respectively) to the

12

above-captioned action. Each of these actions involves four additional patents and different

13

accused products. Plaintiff also seeks to relate an action against Cisco Systems, Inc.

14

(Case No. 11-4968) to the above-captioned action. The action against Cisco involves an

15

additional patent and a different accused product. Plaintiff also seeks to relate an action against

16

Blackboard, Inc. (Case No. 11-4969) to the above-captioned action. Although the action against

17

Blackboard asserts the same patent claims as the instant action, it involves different

18

accused products.

19

As to all four cases, the motion to relate is DENIED. Due to the multiplicity of varying

20

issues raised by the different accused products and, in most cases, different patents, this order

21

finds that the cases are not related within the meaning of our local rules.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: November 16, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2