Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. et al v. WI-Lan, Inc.,

Filing 49

ORDER Relating Cases. Signed by Judge James Ware on February 20, 2009. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Intel Corp., ___________________________________/ Broadcom Corp., et al., ___________________________________/ Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., et al., ___________________________________/ Acer America Corp., et al., ___________________________________/ Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wi-LAN, Inc., et al., Defendants. A. Motions to Relate Cases Presently before the Court are two administrative motions to relate this action, Intel Corp. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-04555 JW to two later-filed cases in this District, Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-05742 MHP, and Acer America Corp v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-05624 SI. (Docket Item Nos. 41, 43.) On January 16, 2009, the Court related this action to two additional later-filed cases, Broadcom Corp. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 0805543 JW, and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-05544 JW. (See Docket / NO. C 08-04555 JW NO. C 08-05543 JW NO. C 08-05544 JW NO. C 08-05624 SI NO. C 08-05742 MHP ORDER RELATING CASES; STAYING CASE DEADLINES; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Item No. 38.) Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs' motions to relate. (Docket Item No. 49.) Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides that an action is related to another when: (1) (2) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and It appears that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to establish that each of the later-filed cases are substantially related to the Intel action under Local Rule 3-12(a). Since Intel is the first-filed action, the cases are properly related to the Intel action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motions to relate. B. Case Scheduling The Court has now related the Intel action to four other declaratory judgment actions pending in this District. The Court has also been informed that the patent at issue in the five cases in this District, U.S. Patent No. 6,549,749 ("`749 patent"), is being asserted by Defendants against Plaintiffs in an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, known as Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Acer, No. 2:07-CV-473 (TJW) (E.D. Tex.). Relatedly, Defendants in the Broadcom action have moved to either dismiss or transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas. In light of the growing complexity of these related actions, the Court orders as follows: (1) All parties shall appears for the Case Management Conference currently set for March 16, 2009 at 10 a.m. At the Conference, the Court intends to address case consolidation and a global approach for managing Defendants' motions to dismiss these actions or to transfer them to the Eastern District of Texas. With these issues in mind, on or before March 6, 2009, the parties to all five cases shall collectively file a Joint Case Management Statement. (2) (3) All deadlines in the five related Wi-LAN actions are STAYED. Defendant Intel's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Docket Item No. 31) presently set for March 30, 2009 is taken off calendar until such time as the Court 2

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (4)

determines the case structure following the March 16, 2009 Case Management Conference. Defendants' Motion to Extend Time in the Broadcom action (Docket Item No. 11 in Case No. C 08-05543 JW) is DENIED as moot.

Dated: February 20, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: A. James Isbester [e-mail] Adam R. Alper [e-mail] Christian Chadd Taylor [e-mail] Gayle Esther Rosenstein [e-mail] George C. Best [e-mail] Gregory S. Arovas [e-mail] John M. Desmarais [e-mail] Megan M Chung [e-mail] Michael C. Spillner [e-mail] Michael Woodrow De Vries [e-mail]

Dated: February 20, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28