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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?