ASUS Computer International et al v. InterDigital, Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE CASES. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/15/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

v.
INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On June 11, 2015, Interdigital Technology Corporation filed an administrative motion to

14

consider whether Case No. 5:15-cv-02584-LHK, Interdigital Technology Corp. et al. v. Pegatron

15

Corp. (Pegatron II), was related to either Case No. 5:13-mc-80087-EJD, Interdigital Technology

16

Corp. v. Pegatron Corp. (Pegatron I) or the above-captioned case.

17

On June 15, 2015, Judge Edward J. Davila found that Pegatron II was not related to

18

Pegatron I. Thereafter, Judge Lucy H. Koh referred Pegatron II to the undersigned to determine

19

whether it was related to the above-captioned action. Plaintiffs filed a notice arguing that the cases

20

are not related. See ECF 24.

21

Civil Local Rule 3-12 governs the relation of cases. Cases are related when they “concern

22

substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event; and [i]t appears likely that there will

23

be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are

24

conducted before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a)(1)-(2).

25

Interdigital argues that the cases are related because (1) both actions concern disputes over

26

“nearly identical” licensing agreements, (2) Pegatron was, when the licensing agreements were

27

signed, a subsidiary of ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., one of the Plaintiffs in this action, and (3) the

28

two actions involve “substantial overlapping issues.” See Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs argue in response

1

that Interdigital failed to show either element of Local Rule 3-12 because there are a “multitude of

2

case-specific facts and issues” that render the cases factually and legally dissimilar. See Response

3

at 3-4.

4

The Court has carefully reviewed the record in both cases and agrees with Plaintiffs that

5

these cases are not related under Rule 3-12. There are, undoubtedly, some similarities between the

6

suits: Interdigital is a party to both suits, both ASUS and Pegatron have licensing agreements with

7

Interdigital that were allegedly violated, and Interdigital alleges that these licensing agreements

8

include an enforceable arbitration provision. But this action includes claims brought by ASUS et

9

al. alleging antitrust and unfair competition claims, as well as fraudulent inducement, alongside
several breach of contract claims, while Pegatron II is a case brought by Interdigital seeking,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

among other relief, a permanent anti-suit injunction against Pegatron regarding a lawsuit brought

12

in Taiwanese courts. Though Interdigital moves to compel arbitration in both cases, the cases

13

ultimately involve different parties, different licensing agreements, and different claims. Further,

14

Pegatron II involves issues raised by the parallel Taiwanese suit that are not present in this action.

15

The Court finds that the cases can proceed before different judges without being unduly

16

burdensome because there are myriad case-specific facts and issues that do not overlap, even if the

17

cases both involve similar licensing agreements, and that it is unlikely that there would be

18

conflicting results were the cases to be tried before different judges. See ESS Tech., Inc. v. PC-Tel,

19

Inc., 2001 WL 1891713, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2001) (denying a motion to reconsider

20

whether cases were related, and affirming its prior decision finding the cases not related despite

21

the cases sharing “a common issue regarding the reasonableness of a license proposal”).

22
23
24
25
26
27

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Case No. 5:15-cv-02584-LHK is not related
to this action, and DENIES the administrative motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
2