Corning Optical Communications Wireless Ltd. v. LGC Wireless Inc. et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Transfer Case; denying 47 Motion to Deny Other Motions Without Prejudice. The Clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and close this court's file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/13/2015. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

CORNING OPTICAL
COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS LTD.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.
LGC WIRELESS, INC., et al.,

Case No. 5:15-cv-03976-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER; DENYING MOTION TO
DENY OTHER MOTIONS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 47

Defendants.
On August 31, 2015, Plaintiff Corning Optical Communications Wireless Ltd. (“Corning”)

14

filed a complaint for patent infringement in this district against Defendants LGC Wireless, Inc.

15

(“LGC”), ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (“ADC”), and TE Connectivity Ltd. Since that time,

16

four motions have been filed: (1) a motion to transfer this action to the United States District Court

17

for the District of Delaware filed by LGC and ADC (Docket Item No. 33); (2) a motion to

18

intervene filed by CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina and CommScope Technolgies LLC

19

(Docket Item No. 34); (3) a motion to disqualify Corning’s counsel filed by ADC (Docket Item

20

No. 35); and (4) a motion to deny without prejudice the motions to intervene and disqualify filed

21

by Corning (Docket Item No. 47). Notably, the transfer motion is unopposed.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In its opposition to Corning’s motion to deny other motions without prejudice, LGC and
AGC request this court seemingly delay any transfer until after it decides the motion to disqualify
counsel. They contend that transferring the case now without ruling on the disqualification issue
will encourage gamesmanship and frustrate standards of professional conduct. The court
disagrees, however, that a transfer would result in such consequences. As this court understands
it, Corning’s counsel will not be absolved of any potential basis for disqualification simply
1
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03976-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER; DENYING MOTION TO DENY OTHER
MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

because the case is sent to another jurisdiction. Indeed, the particular conflict cited in the papers

2

will presumably still exist, and the District of Delaware is well-equipped to determine whether that

3

conflict requires Corning to seek out new counsel under California authority or otherwise.

4

Gamesmanship is not encouraged and standards of professional conduct are not frustrated just by

5

changing venue to the court that, without question, will ultimately oversee this case.

6

At the same time, this court does not find it appropriate to deny any motions without

7

prejudice. This case can be transferred with those motions pending. The judge that ultimately

8

receives it can decide whether the disqualification and intervention motions can be heard on the

9

current briefing, or whether those motions need to be renewed with amended pleadings.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Accordingly, Corning’s motion to deny the disqualification and intervention motions
without prejudice is DENIED. The motion to transfer is GRANTED. Because the court finds no
persuasive reason to delay, the Clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware and close this court’s file.

14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03976-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER; DENYING MOTION TO DENY OTHER
MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE