Altera Corporation v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG

Filing 26

AMENDED (1) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; (2) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO RELATE CASES' (3) ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 02/19/2015. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ALTERA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-04794-BLF

11

AMENDED
(1) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
(2) ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO RELATE CASES;
(3) ORDER OF RECUSAL

12

[Re: ECF 24]

8
v.
9
10

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO.KG,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.

13

On February 13, 2015, the Court denied an unopposed motion to relate the above-

14

captioned case with another case pending in this district, Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH &

15

Co. KG, 14-cv-04963-RS (“Xilinx”). The Court denied relation because the undersigned would be

16

forced to recuse herself in the Xilinx case. On February 17, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for

17

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of the motion to relate the cases.

18

See ECF 24.

19

A district court has the “inherent power to reconsider, set aside, or amend interlocutory

20

orders at any time prior to entry of a final judgment.” Meas v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 681

21

F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Consistent with this inherent power, the Court HEREBY

22

GRANTS Defendant’s motion for reconsideration and ORDERS as follows.
Defendant’s Motion to Relate Cases

23

A.

24

Defendant states that neither Altera nor Xilinx oppose the relief sought. See ECF 24-2 at 1.

25

Both actions at issue involve the same patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,759 and 6,704,891. See id.

26

at 2. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in both actions, and

27

determination of both suits could require a court to construe both patents. Defendant argues that

28

failure to relate the cases would cause “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or

1

conflicting results.” Id.
The Court agrees. Relation of these two cases is consistent with Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)

2
3

and Patent Local Rule 2-1, and the interests of judicial economy and efficiency support relating

4

the cases. As such, the Court GRANTS the motion to relate the cases.

5

B.

Recusal

6

As the undersigned stated in her prior Order, ECF 23, she must recuse herself from Xilinx

7

v. Papst Licensing. Therefore, following the relation of these cases, the undersigned hereby

8

RECUSES herself.
C.

9

Order

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1.

The above-captioned action, Altera Corp. v. Papst Licensing, is hereby deemed

12

related to Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing, Case No. 14-cv-4963-RS, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-

13

12.
2.

14

Due to the Court’s conflict in Xilinx, the Clerk is requested to randomly reassign

15

the cases pursuant to the provisions of paragraph D.2 of the Assignment Plan and Civil Local Rule

16

3-14.

17

3.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

This Amended Order supersedes and replaces the prior Order at Docket Entry 25.

Dated: February 19, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2