Microchip Technology, Inc., et al v. United Module Corp. et al

Filing 77

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motions to Transfer in Related Cases: 5:10-cv-04241-LHK; 5:10-cv-05290-LHK; 5:10-cv-05196-LHK; and 5:11-cv-00430-LHK. The Clerk shall close the files in these Related Cases. Signed by Judge Koh on 6/9/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and
SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Related Cases:
CASE NO.: CV-10-04241-LHK

15

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.: CV-10-05196-LHK

16

v.
CASE NO.: CV-10-05290-LHK

17

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
LLC,

CASE NO.: CV-11-00430-LHK

18
Defendants.
19
20
21

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCOR, INC.,
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., and
ANALOG DEVICES, INC.
Plaintiffs,

22
23
24
25

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
TRANSFER CASES TO EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS

v.
UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
LLC,
Defendants.

26
27
28
1
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1
2

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., TSMC NORTH
AMERICA, and UBICOM, INC.,

3
4
5

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
LLC,

6
Defendants.
7
8

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

9
Plaintiffs,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
v.
11
12
13

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
LLC,
Defendants.

14
15
16

In these related actions, Plaintiffs seek a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity as

17

to three now-expired patents owned by or exclusively licensed to Defendants: U.S. Patent No.

18

4,795,719 (the ‘719 Patent); U.S. Patent No. 4,868,629 (the ‘629 Patent); and U.S. Patent No.

19

5,042,009 (the ‘009 Patent). Defendants United Module Corp. and Keranos LLC move to dismiss,

20

transfer, or stay the cases based on the first-to-file rule. Defendants are Plaintiffs in an earlier filed

21
22

action in the Eastern District of Texas pending before the Honorable T. John Ward. The Court

23

held a hearing on these motions on March 3, 2011. Pursuant to the parties’ request, the Court

24

stayed these cases through June 8, 2011 to provide the parties an opportunity to try to resolve the

25

cases through mediation. The parties participated in a court-appointed mediation on June 6, 2011,

26
27
28
2
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1

but the parties did not settle the cases. As of June 9, 2011, the case is no longer stayed.1 For the

2

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motions to transfer based on the first-to-file rule.

3

I. BACKGROUND

4
Plaintiffs Microchip Technology, Inc., and Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., filed this
5
6

declaratory judgment action on September 20, 2010. See Compl. [dkt. #1] in Case No. 10-CV-

7

4241-LHK. Three additional cases followed. On November 16, 2010, Plaintiffs Freescale

8

Semiconductor, Inc., National Semiconductor Corp., and Analog Devices, Inc., filed their own

9

declaratory judgment action. See Compl. [dkt. #1] in Case No. 10-CV-5196-LHK. On November

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

22, 2010, Plaintiffs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., TSMC North America, and
UBICOM, Inc., filed a declaratory judgment action. See Compl. [dkt. #1] in Case No. 10-CV-

12
13

5290-LHK. Finally, on January 28, 2011, Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung

14

Semiconductor Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action. See Compl. [dkt. #1] in Case No. 11-CV-

15

0430-LHK. The Court found these cases related pursuant to the District’s Civil Local Rules.

16

Hereafter, Plaintiffs will be referred to as “DJ Plaintiffs.”

17
18

The Defendants in each of the cases are United Module Corp. (UMC) and Keranos
(collectively “DJ Defendants”). UMC is the owner of the three now-expired patents. According to

19
DJ Plaintiffs, the ‘719 and ‘629 patents expired in 2006, while the ’009 patent expired in 2008.
20
21

UMC is headquartered in Los Altos, California. According to patent assignment records, a

22

Fremont, California company named “Waferscale Integration Inc.” assigned UMC the patents-in-

23

suit on June 29, 2000. See Tatelman Decl., Exh. 26. Keranos was formed as a Texas Limited

24

Liability Company on February 10, 2010. See Tatelman Decl, Exh. 15 (“Certificate of

25
1

26
27
28

The parties’ request for an extension of the stay pending resolution of jurisdictional and
scheduling issues in the earlier-filed action in Texas is denied. The Court was prepared to rule on
the pending motions after the March 3, 2011 hearing, but only stayed these cases at the parties’
request to give the parties an opportunity to resolve their disputes via mediation. As the parties’
efforts at mediation were unsuccessful, the Court will not delay resolution of these motions any
further.
3
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1

Formation”). The street address of Keranos is 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-

2

3128. According to its Certificate of Formation, Keranos has a sole member, J. Nicholas Gross,

3

whose address is located in Berkeley, California. According to the DJ Defendants, although UMC

4
is the legal owner of the patents at issue, shortly after Keranos was formed, UMC “completely
5
6
7
8

transferred to Keranos its rights to sue” under an Exclusive License Agreement. See Defs.’ Reply
at 7.2
On June 23, 2010, Keranos filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of
Texas. That action is captioned “Keranos LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

2:10-cv-207” (“Texas Case”), and involves claims of infringement with respect to the same three

11

patents at issue in this action. The claims of patent infringement relate to, among other devices,

12
13

“integrated circuits using embedded flash memory in discrete form, wafer form, or incorporated

14

within larger systems on printed circuit boards.” See Compl. ¶ 12. Each of the DJ Plaintiffs here,

15

except for Silicon Storage Technology (SST), is a Defendant in the Texas case. SST is a wholly

16

owned subsidiary of DJ Plaintiff Microchip Technology, Inc. Id. at ¶ 2 (“On April 8, 2010,

17

Plaintiff SST became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Microchip.”) Besides the DJ

18

Plaintiffs, the Texas case also includes some two-dozen other Defendants, including Qualcomm,

19
Inc., Intel Corp., IBM Corp., and Apple, Inc. According to DJ Defendants (and the Court’s review
20
21

of the docket in the Texas Case), defendants in the Texas Case have filed more than twenty

22

motions to dismiss for lack of standing and/or for judgment on the pleadings (specifically raising

23

the issue of whether UMC is a “necessary and indispensable party”). Those motions are fully

24

briefed, and under submission before Judge Ward.

25
26
27
2

28

The specific terms of that Exclusive License Agreement are confidential. The Court is
merely citing information available in the redacted public version of Keranos’ Reply Brief.
4
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1
2
3

II. ANALYSIS
DJ Defendants have moved to dismiss on two grounds: subject matter jurisdiction and the
first to file rule. DJ Plaintiffs oppose dismissal on both grounds. The Court exercises its discretion

4
to decline to rule on UMC’s jurisdictional argument, and instead finds transfer proper based on the
5
6

first-to-file rule.

7

A. UMC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

8

The Supreme Court has ruled that a district court “may dispose of an action by a forum non

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when
considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” See Sinochem Int’l Co.
v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 423 (2007). The Supreme Court went on to state

12
13

that a “federal court has leeway to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case

14

on the merits.” Id. at 431. The Supreme Court’s conclusion in Sinochem is equally applicable in

15

the context of motions to transfer, which are not decisions on the merits. See San Francisco Tech.,

16

Inc. v. Glad Prods. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83681, *19 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2010).

17
18

UMC argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. Specifically, UMC
argues that there is no actual case or controversy between UMC and DJ Plaintiffs because UMC, as

19
the patent owner, completely transferred to Keranos UMC’s rights to sue for patent infringement.
20
21
22

Thus, UMC contends any litigation threat to DJ Plaintiffs is from Keranos and not from UMC.
Because the Court has determined that transfer is appropriate based on the earlier filed

23

Texas Case, it does not reach UMC’s argument for dismissal based on a lack of an actual case or

24

controversy, and thus a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 A decision by this Court that there is,

25
26
27
28

3

The Court notes that UMC has expressly represented to this Court that UMC is “amenable
to personal jurisdiction” in the Texas Case if the Texas Court decides UMC is a “necessary and
indispensable party.” See Defs.’ Reply at 8. In any event, as with subject matter jurisdiction, the
Texas Court is the proper forum to address personal jurisdiction-related arguments. See Sinochem,
549 U.S. at 425 (“a court need not resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject5
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1

or is not, an actual case or controversy between UMC and DJ Plaintiffs is inappropriate given the

2

fully briefed motions in the Texas Court on the related issue of whether UMC, as the patent owner,

3

is a necessary and indispensable party in the Texas Case. The issue of UMC’s status should be

4
addressed to the Texas Court.
5
6
7

B. DJ Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Basis of First-to-File Rule
The first-to-file rule is “a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a

8

district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and

9

issues has already been filed in another district.” See Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982). As another Judge in this District has noted, the “rule promotes
judicial efficiency and prevents the risk of inconsistent decisions that would arise from multiple

12
13

litigations of identical claims. Accordingly, ‘it should not be disregarded lightly.’” See Meru

14

Networks, Inc. v. Extricom, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90212, *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010)

15

(Whyte, J.) (citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991)).

16

The first-to-file rule, however, is not inflexible, as the Ninth Circuit has recognized limited

17

exceptions under various circumstances such as bad faith, anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.

18

See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628. The Federal Circuit has determined that the first-to-file rule applies

19
to patent cases. See Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 938 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
20
21
22

1. Threshold Factors
The application of the first-to-file rule requires consideration of three threshold factors: (1)

23

the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the

24

issues. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625; see also Meru Networks, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90212, *3.

25

DJ Plaintiffs do not challenge the first and third factors. And, it is clear that those factors are

26

satisfied here. The Texas Case, filed on June 23, 2010, was filed three months before the first

27
28

matter jurisdiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event, a
foreign tribunal is plainly the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case”) (emphasis added).
6
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1

action was filed in this Court, on September 20, 2010. Moreover, the two actions involve mirror

2

image issues. In the Texas Case, Keranos alleges patent infringement with respect to the ‘719,

3

‘629, and ‘009 patents. In this action, DJ Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment of non-

4
infringement and invalidity with respect to the same three patents.
5
6

DJ Plaintiffs argue, however, that the first-to-file rule should not apply because two parties

7

in this action, namely DJ Plaintiff SST and DJ Defendant UMC, are not parties in the Texas Case.

8

See Pls.’ Combined Response to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 18-19 [dkt. #35]. The Court is not

9

persuaded.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The similar parties’ requirement does not require “exact identity,” but instead is satisfied if
the parties are substantially similar. See, e.g., Intersearch Worldwide, Ltd. v. Intersearch Group,

12
13

Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (stating that “exact identity is not required to

14

satisfy the first-to-file rule”); see also Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093

15

(N.D. Cal. 2006) (ruling that the “‘sameness’ requirement does not mandate that the two actions be

16

identical, but is satisfied if they are ‘substantially similar.’”). It is clear that the parties in this

17

action and in the Texas Case are substantially similar, although the Texas Case includes far more

18

entities that have been accused of patent infringement. Although SST is not yet a party in the

19
Texas Case, it is, in fact, a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip Technology, Inc., and
20
21

presumably, may be added to the Texas Case. Judicial economy, however, is better served by

22

leaving the joinder issue to the determination of the Texas Court. See British Telecommunications

23

plc v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6345, *12-14 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 1993)

24

(although one party was not identical to both actions, applying first-to-file rule and leaving joinder

25

decision to court in first-filed case).

26

DJ Plaintiffs also note that UMC is not yet a party in the Texas Case. This argument is

27
somewhat misleading because DJ Plaintiffs (defendants in the Texas Case) have filed numerous
28
7
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1

motions arguing that UMC, as the patent owner, is a necessary and indispensable party in the Texas

2

Case. These motions, as previously noted, are under submission. If Judge Ward grants the

3

motions, UMC will likely be added as a party to the Texas Case. In any event, the decision with

4
respect to UMC’s role in the Texas Case, if any, is within the sound discretion of the Texas Court.
5
6

Finally, DJ Plaintiffs argue that an unpublished decision of the Federal Circuit and a recent
opinion by this Court support their argument against application of the first-to-file rule. Neither

8

point is well-taken. Noting the “ample degree of discretion” in transfer rulings, the Federal Circuit

9

denied a writ of mandamus where a court in a second-filed action determined that transfer was not

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

warranted under the first-to-file rule. See In re Transaction Sys. Architects, Inc., 2000 U.S. App.

11

LEXIS 5103, *3-6 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2000). In that case, however, the district court found that the

12
13

two cases were “completely different,” and involved different parties, different products, and

14

different claims. Id. at *3. Here, the parties are substantially the same and the issues, involving the

15

same three patents in both actions, are identical.

16
17
18

In a recent opinion, this Court found that the threshold factors of the first-to-file rule were
not met where the actions did not involve the same parties and the same subject matter issues. See
Aliphcom v. Wi-LAN, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123295 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2010), writ of

19
mandamus denied by In re Aliphcom, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2604 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2011).
20
21

Aliphcom, however, is distinguishable from the instant action on at least three grounds. First, and

22

most important, the Court found an exception to the first-to-file rule in Aliphcom because one of

23

the patents at issue was already the subject of claim construction in the later-filed case. Id. at *7.

24

Here, however, the three patents in issue have not been the subject of a claim construction. Thus,

25

there is no “sound reason” to depart from the first-to-file rule, especially where, as in Aliphcom,

26

considerations of judicial efficiency and avoidance of inconsistent judgments call for transfer.

27
28
8
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1
2
3

Second, in Aliphcom, the declaratory judgment plaintiff in the later-filed California action
had no connection with any of the parties in the earlier-filed Texas action. Id. at *6 (“However,
Wi-LAN has cited no case applying the first-to-file rule where the original defendant in the first-

4
filed suit had no relationship at all to the plaintiff bringing the later-filed suit.”). Here, the parties
5
6

are substantially the same, except that SST and UMC are not parties to the Texas Case but are

7

parties in the cases before this Court. However, both SST and UMC have a close connection to the

8

Texas Case. SST is a wholly owned-subsidiary of Microchip Technology, Inc., which is a

9

defendant in the Texas Case. Similarly, whether UMC, as the patent owner, is a necessary and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

indispensable party in the Texas Case is at issue in fully briefed motions before the Texas Court.
And third, in Aliphcom, plaintiffs in the earlier-filed Texas action did not assert

12
13

infringement of a particular patent, and only tried to add infringement claims with respect to that

14

patent after the later California action was filed. Id. at *4. Thus, the Court found that the

15

California action was really the first-filed case. In this action, there is no dispute that the Texas

16

Case is the first-filed since DJ Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief with respect to the same three

17

patents at issue in the Texas Case.

18

In sum, the Court finds the threshold factors for application of the first-to-file rule satisfied.

19
2. Potential Exceptions to First-to-File Rule
20
21

DJ Plaintiffs argue that, even if the threshold factors are satisfied, the Court should, in its

22

discretion, decline to apply the first-to-file rule based on a “customer-suit” and/or “forum

23

shopping” exception. See Pls.’ Combined Response to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 19-22. For the

24

reasons specified below, the Court finds that neither exception is a “sound reason” to depart from

25

the first-to-file rule. See Genentech, 998 F.2d at 938 (requiring deference to the first-filed action

26

unless there is “sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed

27
action”).
28
9
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1
2
3

a. Customer-Suit Exception
“The customer suit exception is an exception to the general rule that favors the forum of the
first-filed action.” See Tegic Communs. Corp. v. Bd. of Regents, 458 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir.

4
2006). More specifically, the customer suit exception involves the scenario in which “[t]he first is
5
6

the ‘customer action’, where the first suit is filed against a customer who is simply a reseller of the

7

accused goods, while the second suit is a declaratory action brought by the manufacturer of the

8

accused goods.” See Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078, 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In

9

evaluating the customer-suit exception, “the primary question is whether the issues and parties are

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

such that the disposition of one case would be dispositive of the other.” See Katz v. Siegler, 909
F.2d 1459, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1990). DJ Plaintiffs argue that this action should take precedence over

12
13

the Texas Case because SST is a manufacturer of the technology accused of infringing the patents,

14

and that, in the Texas Case, Keranos has “accused several of SST’s customers of infringing the

15

patents-in-suit” but not SST itself. See Pls.’ Combined Response to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 19.

16
17
18

The Federal Circuit has made clear that the “guiding principles” of the customer-suit
exception are efficiency and judicial economy. See Tegic, 458 F.3d at 1343. DJ Plaintiffs do not
suggest that SST is the only manufacturer of the relevant technology. Thus, resolution of this

19
action would not “resolve all charges against customers” in the first-filed action. See Kahn, 889
20
21

F.2d at 1081. In addition, complete relief is more difficult in this case, at least at this time, because

22

numerous defendants in the Texas Case are not before this Court. In these circumstances, the

23

guiding principles of efficiency and judicial economy support application of the first-to-file rule.

24
25
26

b. Forum Shopping Exception
Another potential exception to the first-to-file rule is bad faith forum shopping. See
Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628. In this action, DJ Plaintiffs argue that “the lawsuit in Eastern Texas has

27
little, if any, connection to the factual circumstances of Keranos’ suit, and is merely an attempt to
28
10
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1

manipulate the venue laws.” See Pls.’ Combined Response to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 21.

2

Specifically, DJ Plaintiffs point to: (1) UMC’s Los Altos, California headquarters; (2) the

3

formation of Keranos as a Texas limited liability company in February 2010, four months before

4
the Texas Case was filed; and (3) shortly after Keranos’ formation, UMC’s transfer of its right to
5
6

sue for infringement to Keranos via an Exclusive License Agreement. Id. DJ Defendants’ only

7

response is that Keranos rents office space at a building in Longview, Texas (though acknowledges

8

“it does not have any employees yet”), and that Keranos is not an “ephemeral entity” merely

9

controlled by UMC. See Pls.’ Reply at 9-10. At the March 3, 2011 hearing, counsel for DJ

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Defendants confirmed that Keranos still had no employees in Texas, and stated his belief that the
Texas office only has “some boxes and documents and things like that” related to the Texas

12
13

litigation. See Transcript of March 3, 2011 Hearing, p.12 [dkt. #70].

14

DJ Plaintiffs raise troubling issues not fully answered by DJ Defendants’ response that

15

Keranos rents office space for some litigation boxes and is “in the process of hiring someone.”

16

These issues, however, are more appropriately raised in a motion to transfer venue in the Texas

17

Court. Moreover, continuing this action on a parallel track as the Texas Case, whereby both this

18

Court and the Texas Court would have to construe the claims and issue decisions regarding

19
infringement and invalidity of the same three patents, “would unavoidably result in unnecessary
20
21

duplication of judicial efforts, with a resulting risk of inconsistent results as the actions progress in

22

each Court.” See Aliphcom, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123295, *7. In conclusion, “the risk of

23

inconsistent judgments and waste of judicial resources must outweigh the equitable concern” of the

24

parties’ limited connections to Texas. Id. at *8.

25
26

3. Balance of Convenience Factors
Similar to their claims regarding forum shopping, DJ Plaintiffs argue that any analysis of

27
28
11
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1

the relevant convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) results in a conclusion that “this patent

2

dispute plainly belongs here in the Northern District of California, not Texas.” See Pls.’ Combined

3

Response to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 12. For example, DJ Plaintiffs point out that, aside from

4
Keranos, no party in either action is headquartered in Texas, while certain entities, including UMC
5
6

and SST, are either headquartered or have principal places of business in the Northern District of

7

California. Id. at 14. Moreover, DJ Plaintiffs continue, a substantial number of witnesses are

8

located in this judicial district. Id.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

These are all good convenience arguments, but are ultimately addressed to the wrong
audience. “The Ninth Circuit has held that normally, this convenience argument should be
addressed to the court in the first-filed action, not the court in the later-filed action.” See Meru

12
13

Networks, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90212, *5 (citing Alltrade, 946 F.3d at 628); see also Genentech,

14

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126773, *7 (“Under the procedural law of the Ninth Circuit, ‘normally [this

15

issue] should be addressed to the court in the first-filed action”). In fact, a court in an earlier filed-

16

action should consider all relevant convenience factors in its analysis of the appropriate forum on a

17

motion to transfer. See In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (directing

18

transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California where “the

19
convenience of the parties and witnesses, the sources of proof, the local interest, and the
20
21

compulsory process factors all significantly favor transfer.”); see also Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid

22

Techs., Inc., 518 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (directing court in first-filed action to consider

23

convenience factors as “[e]ventually, robust consideration of these factors will reduce the

24

incentives for a race to the courthouse because both parties will realize that the case will be heard

25

or transferred to the most convenient or suitable forum.”). Accordingly, convenience arguments

26

should be addressed to the court in the first-filed action.

27
28
12
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

1
2
3

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the parties’ request to continue the stay and
GRANTS Defendants’ motions to transfer the related cases in this District to the Eastern District of

4
Texas for consolidation with the first-filed Texas Case. This Order applies to Case Numbers: 105
6

CV-4241-LHK, 10-CV-5196-LHK, 10-CV-5290-LHK, and 11-CV-0430-LHK. This Order is

7

without prejudice to any motion to transfer based on convenience made in the Texas Court. The

8

Clerk shall close the file.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: June 9, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER