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