Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 105

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DEFERRING RULING ON 67 MOTION TO TRANSFER. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

GOOGLE INC.,

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER DEFERRING
RULING ON MOTION
TO TRANSFER

v.
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM U.S. LP,
MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

(Docket No. 67)

Defendants.

9
10

No. C 13-5933 CW

________________________________/

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In this declaratory judgment action, Defendants Rockstar
Consortium US LP and MobileStar Technologies, LLC filed a renewed
motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Texas.1
Defendants contend that this action should be combined with
several of their actions asserted against Plaintiff Google Inc.
and Google’s customers in the Eastern District of Texas.

Google

opposes the motion as both procedurally improper because
Defendants previously moved to transfer, and substantively
deficient because the § 1404 convenience factors weigh in favor of
retaining this action in the Northern District of California.

At

the June 26, 2014 hearing, the Court indicated it was inclined to
deny the motion to transfer.
1

See Docket No. 98 at 18:12-16.

This motion is essentially identical to the one brought in
conjunction with Defendants’ motion to dismiss. To decline
declaratory judgment jurisdiction over a case in favor of another
identical one is equivalent to transferring the case; thus, “the
transfer analysis essentially mirrors the considerations that
govern whether the [] court could decline to hear the case.”
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Mosaid Technologies, Inc., 518 F.3d
897, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

1

Subsequently, the Texas court denied Google and its

2

customers’ motions to transfer those actions to this district.

3

See, e.g., Rockstar Consortium US LP et al. v. Samsung Electronics

4

Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 13-00900-JRG, Docket No. 70 (E.D. Tex.

5

July 1, 2014).

6

engage in parallel litigation in two separate fora.

7

interests of judicial economy, if the customer suits were to

8

proceed in Texas, the Court would likely transfer this action

9

there.

It would not make sense to require the parties to

See 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

In the

However, on August 14, 2014, Google

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and its customers filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

11

regarding the Texas court’s order denying transfer.

12

Nos. 103, 104.

13

might not proceed in the Eastern District of Texas.

14

Nintendo of Am., Inc., 2014 WL 2889911, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. June

15

25, 2014).

16

transfer until the Federal Circuit rules on the petition for writ

17

of mandamus.

18

Northern District of California, this Court would relate them to

19

the above-entitled case.

20

petition for writ of mandamus on the present case’s docket.

21
22
23

See Docket

There is a possibility that the customer suits
See In re

Accordingly, the Court DEFERS RULING on the motion to

If the customer suits were transferred to the

Google shall file updates regarding its

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/20/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2