Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 82

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d regarding In re Nintendo of America, Inc., et al., No. 2014-132 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2014) filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 6/25/2014)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
Sean Pak (Cal. Bar No. 219032)

Matthew S. Warren (Cal. Bar No. 230565)
Kristin J. Madigan (Cal. Bar No. 233436)

[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, California 94111
 [phone]
[phone] facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiff GOOGLE INC.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA



OAKLAND DIVISION


 GOOGLE INC.,

CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW



STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION
(L.R. 7-3(d))



Plaintiff,
v.

 ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP and
MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Defendants.












01980.00011/6082878.2

CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION (L.R. 7-3(d))

1

Under Local Rule 7-3(d), Plaintiff Google Inc. (“Google”) files this notice regarding

2 today’s order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Nintendo of
3 America, Inc., et al., No. 2014-132 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2014), Docket No. 35. In its Nintendo
4 order, the Court of Appeals ruled on a petition for writ of mandamus from Secure Axcess, LLC v.
5 Nintendo of Am. Inc., No. 13-32, 2014 WL 986169 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2014), which Rockstar cited
6 in its renewed motion to transfer this action to support its argument that defendant-specific
7 damages issues warrant transfer. (Docket. No. 67 at 14 n.19, 15.) The Nintendo Court stated:
8
9
10
11

Secure Axcess nonetheless contends that severance should be denied so that it may
pursue, and have its choice of, the highest royalty rate among the defendants. This
argument is outweighed, as in Katz, where we held that ‘[a]lthough there may be
additional issues involving the defendants in [the customer] action, their
prosecution will be advanced if [the plaintiff] is successful on the major premises
being litigated in [the manufacturer litigation], and may well be mooted if [the
plaintiff] is unsuccessful.’ 909 F.2d at 1464.

12 Nintendo, at 5 (alterations in original). A copy of the Slip Opinion is attached as Exhibit A.
13 DATED: June 25, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

14

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

15

By /s Matthew S. Warren
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
Sean Pak (Cal. Bar No. 219032)
Matthew S. Warren (Cal. Bar No. 230565)
Kristin J. Madigan (Cal. Bar No. 233436)
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
[phone]
[phone] facsimile

16
17
18
19
20

Attorneys for Google Inc.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
01980.00011/6082878.2

-1-

CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION (L.R. 7-3(d))