HTC Corporation et al v. Technology Properties Limited et al

Filing 756

ORDER RELATING CASES - The Clerk shall notify the parties and the affected judges accordingly. With the parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction secured long ago, the undersign will continue to preside over HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties, Ltd. (PSG). Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on October 15, 2014. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2014) Modified on 10/15/2014 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, )
)
et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
NINTENDO CO., LTD.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER RELATING CASES

On September 24, 2014, Judge White issued an order noting that Plaintiffs are litigating the

17
18

4:12-cv-3881-JSW

same patents in nine cases pending in this district:










HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. 08-CV-882 (PSG);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 12-CV-3863 (VC);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al., No. 12-CV-3865 (PJH);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. Garmin Ltd., No. 12-CV-3870 (EJD);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., No. 12-CV-3876 (BLF);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 12-CV-3877 (LHK);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., No. 12-CV-3879 (PJH);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 12-CV-3880 (SI);
Technology Properties Ltd. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No.12-CV-3881 (JSW).

25
26
27
28
1
Case Nos. 4:12-cv-03881-JSW; 5:08-cv-882-PSG
ORDER RELATING CASES

1

In that same order, Judge White referred the matter to the undersigned to determine if this case and

2

the case pending before him are related under Civil L.R. 3-12.1 Shortly thereafter, the undersigned

3

took action on the referral by setting a status conference, which is now scheduled for October 28,

4

2014.

5
6

After reviewing the parties’ submissions on the issue, the court has concluded no
conference is required and that the issue may be decided on the papers. Under Civil L.R. 3-12(a),

7
8
9

an “action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties,
property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different

11

judges.”2 A judge may sua sponte refer a case the judge believes is related “to the Judge assigned

12

to the earliest-filed case, requesting the Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case consider whether

13
14

the cases are related. The parties must file any response in opposition to or support of relating the
cases pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(d).”3

15
“Upon . . . a referral by another Judge, after the time for filing support or opposition to the

16
17

Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related has passed, the Judge in this District who is

18

assigned to the earliest-filed case will decide if the cases are or are not related and will notify the

19

Clerk, who, in turn, will notify the parties.”4 The judge assigned to the earliest-filed case must “act

20
21
22
23
24
25

1

Judge White also noted this district’s proposed amendment to Patent L.R. 2-1, which provides
that “(a)(1) When actions concerning the same patent are filed within two years of each other by
the same plaintiff, they will be deemed related . . . (6) If the lowest-numbered case is assigned to a
magistrate judge to whom the parties have consented to preside over the action, the magistrate
judge will retain that case even if consent is not entered in higher-numbered cases deemed related
pursuant to subsection (1).”
2

Civil L.R. 3-12(a).

3

Civil L.R. 3-12(c).

4

Civil L.R. 3-12(f).

26
27
28

2
Case Nos. 4:12-cv-03881-JSW; 5:08-cv-882-PSG
ORDER RELATING CASES

1

on the motion or referral within 14 days after the date a response is due.”5 “If any Judge decides

2

that any of the cases are related, pursuant to the Assignment Plan, the Clerk shall reassign all

3

related later-filed cases to that Judge and shall notify the parties and the affected Judges

4

accordingly.”6 “The case management conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by

5

the newly assigned Judge.”7

6
7
8
9

After the order of referral for purposes of determining the relationship and continuing the
case management conference,8 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. filed their response.9 They do not oppose relating the actions.
All nine of these cases are plainly related. The overlap in parties, patents and accused

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

functionality make clear that the potential for conflict and undue duplication and expense is

12

substantial. In light of their relation, in the ordinary course, the cases would all be reassigned to

13

the undersigned as low judge on the pole. However, various parties have declined consent to

14
magistrate judge jurisdiction, as is their right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
15
16

The undersigned therefore orders all eight follow-on cases assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria

17

pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(f)(3), the judge assigned to the related case next on the list. The Clerk

18

shall notify the parties and the affected judges accordingly.

19
20

With the parties’ consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction secured long ago, the undersigned
will continue to preside over HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties, Ltd. (PSG).

21
22
23
5

Civil L.R. 3-12(f)(1).

6

Civil L.R. 3-12(f)(3).

7

Civil L.R. 3-12(g).

8

See Case No. 4:12-cv-03881-JSW, Docket No. 35.

9

See Case No. 5:08-cv-00882-PSG, Docket No. 753 at 1.

24
25
26
27
28

3
Case Nos. 4:12-cv-03881-JSW; 5:08-cv-882-PSG
ORDER RELATING CASES

1
2

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2014
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
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
4
Case Nos. 4:12-cv-03881-JSW; 5:08-cv-882-PSG
ORDER RELATING CASES