Solannex, Inc. v. MiaSole, Inc.

Filing 135

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 128 Motion for Leave to File; denying 131 Motion to Strike 128 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Consolidate (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SOLANNEX, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

MIASOLE, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 11-00171 PSG
(Related Case No. C 12-832 PSG)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 128)

In this patent infringement suit, Defendant MiaSole, Inc. (“MiaSole”) moves for leave to

18

file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying MiaSole’s motion to consolidate dated May

19

23, 2012. 1 Plaintiff Solannex, Inc. (“Solannex”) filed two separate cases against MiaSole. Both

20

cases involve the same parties, the same counsel, patents from the same family with many of the

21

same claim terms, the same inventor, the same prosecution counsel, many of the same witnesses,

22

and the same accused products. In the first case, both parties consented to magistrate judge

23

jurisdiction. In the second case, Solannex did not. The court was left with little choice but to deny

24

consolidation and have the second case reassigned. After the second case was reassigned to Judge

25

Koh, Solannex consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Now that both cases are assigned to this

26

court, MiaSole believes that this change in material fact merits reconsideration of the court’s prior

27

order.

28

1

See Docket No. 123.
1

Case No.: C 11-00171 PSG
ORDER

1

Solannex responds that it consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction based on its

2

understanding from Judge Koh that the two cases would not be consolidated and that the trial date

3

for the first case would remain intact. 2 Solannex contends that its prior refusal to consent related to

4

an abiding concern that the trial date in the first case would be changed to accommodate

5

consolidation with the second case. Only when Judge Koh noted at the case management

6

conference that she had spoken to this court did Solannex agree to consent. Solannex disputes that

7

the cases are as similar as MiaSole claims. The cases involve different patents with different

8

priority dates and specifications. They were reviewed by different patent examiners and they

9

implicate different prior art. More importantly, the claim construction in the second case will be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

different from the first case. While Solannex steadfastly opposes consolidation of the two cases, it

11

notes that the court is not without tools to streamline the two cases. For example, the court is free

12

to adopt certain procedures such as allowing discovery obtained in the first case to be used in the

13

second case. This would reduce any unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense by the

14

parties.

15

The court agrees with Solannex. At this stage of the unique procedural history of this

16

dispute, there is no basis to consolidate the two cases or disturb the current trial date in the first

17

case. MiaSole’s motion for leave to reconsider the motion to consolidate is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

20

7/24/2012

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

Because the court did not seek additional papers in response to MiaSole’s motion for leave for
reconsideration, MiaSole moves to strike Solannex’s response pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-9(d). See
Docket No. 131. The court nevertheless finds it appropriate to consider Solannex’s response.
MiaSole’s motion to strike therefore is DENIED.
2
Case No.: C 11-00171 PSG
ORDER