Mobilemedia Ideas LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al
Filing
92
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IRONWORKS PATENTS LLCS 66 MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND COUNSEL. MobileMedia Ideas LLC terminated. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et
al.,
11
Case No. 17-cv-01958-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IRONWORKS
PATENTS LLC’S MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND
COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 66
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
On May 26, 2017, MobileMedia Ideas LLC (“MMI”) filed suit against Samsung
14
Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”), alleging
15
infringement of the ’078, ’239, and ’125 Patents.1 Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl”). On March 27, 2017,
16
MMI assigned the patents-in-suit to Ironworks Patents LLC (“Ironworks”). Dkt. No. 66-2.
17
Consequently, Ironworks has filed a motion to substitute parties and counsel, Dkt. No. 66, which
18
is now fully briefed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) states that “[i]f an interest is transferred, the action
19
20
may be continued by or against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee
21
to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.” The decision of whether to grant
22
a motion to substitute or join a party is left to the “sound discretion” of the district court, weighing
23
whether “the transferee’s presence would facilitate the conduct of the litigation.” In re Bernal,
24
207 F.3d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “the court, if
25
it sees fit, may allow the transferee to be substituted for the transferor or if it wishes, it may retain
26
the transferor as a party and order that the transferee be made an additional party.” McKesson
27
1
28
These patents-in-suit were issued as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,427,078; 5,915,239; and 5,553,125.
Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21, 24.
1
Info. Sols., Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc., No. CIVS022669 FCD KJM, 2006 WL 658100, at *2 (E.D.
2
Cal. Mar. 13, 2006). Here, after carefully considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds in its
3
discretion that this litigation will be most fairly and efficiently adjudicated by allowing Ironworks
4
to replace MMI as the plaintiff. Consequently, substituting MMI’s counsel with Ironworks’
5
counsel is also clearly appropriate.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
For the foregoing reasons, Ironworks’ motion for substitution of parties and counsel is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/6/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?