Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 56

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byMobileStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Order Denying Motion to Consolidate Cases, # 2 Exhibit B - Order Denying Motion to Transfer, # 3 Exhibit C - Order Granting Motion to Stay)(Related document(s) 20 ) (Budwin, Joshua) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

Download PDF
Exhibit C Case3:14-cv-00498-WHA Document42 Filed04/15/14 Page1 of 2 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 GOOGLE, INC., 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 14-00498 WHA CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., 12 Defendant. 13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY / 14 Three pending actions are relevant to this order: (1) Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. 15, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01112-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2013) (Judge Rodney 16 Gilstrap) (“Amazon action”); (2) Google, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv- 17 00498-WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (Judge William Alsup) (this action); and 18 (3) ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. 19 Feb. 5, 2014) (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) (“Google Texas action”). 20 In this action, in March 2014, defendant ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. moved to stay, 21 transfer, or dismiss this action in light of the actions pending in the Eastern District of Texas. 22 Google opposed, arguing, inter alia, that this action was the first-filed action and the customer- 23 suit exception applied. A March 2014 order held in abeyance ContentGuard’s fully-briefed 24 motion to allow our sister district to rule on the motions pending there. 25 On April 15, Judge Gilstrap denied Google’s motion to stay, denied ContentGuard’s 26 motion to consolidate the Amazon action and the Google Texas action, and held in abeyance 27 Motorola Mobility, LLC’s motion to sever (Dkt. No. 109). Judge Gilstrap deemed the Amazon 28 action first-filed and found that the customer-suit exception did not apply. Case3:14-cv-00498-WHA Document42 Filed04/15/14 Page2 of 2 1 Having considered Judge Gilstrap’s twelve-page order, the interests of comity and 2 judicial efficiency, and ContentGuard’s motion herein, this action is STAYED. The case 3 management conference set for May 1 is VACATED. If anything changes materially, either side 4 may seek relief from the stay. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: April 15, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?