Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Logitech, Inc. et al

Filing 54

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting in Part and Denying in Part 49 Motion to Relate Case.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

Case No. 18-CV-01304-LHK

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

15

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED

LOGITECH, INC.,

16

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 49

17
18

On February 28, 2018, Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc 2017 LLC, and Uniloc

19

Luxembourg, S.A.’s (collectively, “Uniloc”) filed a complaint against Logitech, Inc. (“Logitech)

20

that alleged that Logitech is infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 (the “’049 Patent”). ECF No. 1.

21

On July 6, 2018, Logitech filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 20. On July 20, 2018, Uniloc filed

22

an amended complaint. ECF No. 21. On August 3, 2018, the Court denied Logitech’s motion to

23

dismiss Uniloc’s original complaint as moot. ECF No. 25.

24

On August 3, 2018, Logitech filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. ECF No.

25

24. On August 15, 2018, the Court filed a Case Management Order that set the schedule in this

26

case. ECF No. 30. On August 24, 2018, Uniloc filed its opposition to Logitech’s motion to

27
28

1
Case No. 18-CV-01304-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

1

dismiss. ECF No. 32. On September 7, 2018, Logitech filed its reply. ECF No. 38. On November

2

17, 2018, the Court granted Logitech’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. ECF No. 47.

3

Before the Court is Logitech’s administrative motion to consider whether cases should be

4

related, filed on November 20, 2018. ECF No. 49 (“Mot.”). Uniloc opposed on November 30,

5

2018. ECF No. 52 (“Opp’n”). Logitech wishes to relate the following cases:

6

•

(“LGE”) for infringing the ’049 Patent) (the “6738 case”);

7
8

•

•

United States District Court
Northern District of California

•

15

3:18-CV-6740-EDL (N.D. Cal.) (Uniloc suing LGE for infringing U.S. Patent No.
7,167,487 (the “’487 Patent”)) (the “6740 case”).

13
14

4:18-CV-6739-PJH (N.D. Cal.) (Uniloc suing LGE for infringing U.S. Patent No.
7,020,106 (the “’106 Patent”)) (the “6739 case”);

11
12

3:18-CV-6737-JD (N.C. Cal.) (Uniloc suing LGE for infringing U.S. Patent No.
6,868,079 (the “’079 Patent”)) (the “6737 case”);

9
10

3:18-CV-6738-EMC (N.D. Cal) (Uniloc suing LG Electronics USA Inc et al

See Mot. at 1.
As Logitech discusses in its motion, the 6738 case, where Uniloc asserts the ‘049 patent

16

against LGE, was automatically deemed related to the instant case pursuant to Patent Local Rule

17

2-1(a), which provides that “[w]hen actions concerning the same patent are filed within two years

18

of each other by the same plaintiff, they will be deemed related.” See id. at 1–2. Uniloc agrees that

19

the instant case and the 6738 case are related and does not oppose relating those cases. See Opp’n

20

at 4 (“Insofar as both the -1304 case (against Logitech) and the -6738 case (against LG[E]) involve

21

the same patent, Uniloc agrees that by operation of Patent Local Rule 2-1(a), the cases should be

22

(and now are) related.”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Logitech’s administrative motion to

23

the extent it seeks to relate the 6738 case to the instant case. See Mot.

24

The Court turns now to the 6737, 6739, and 6740 cases, which concern different patents

25

(the ’079, ’106, and ’487 Patents) than the ’049 Patent and concern a different defendant (LGE)

26

than the one at issue here (Logitech).

27
28

2
Case No. 18-CV-01304-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

1

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides that one action is related to another when “[t]he actions

2

concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event;” and “[i]t appears likely that

3

there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the

4

cases are conducted before different Judges.”
The Court concludes that the instant case and the 6737, 6739, and 6740 cases are not

6

related under this definition. Although the plaintiffs to the actions are the same, there is no overlap

7

between the instant case and the defendants, patents, inventors, and technology standards in the

8

6737, 6739, and 6740 cases. Given these differences, discovery as to the ’049 Patent and the ’079,

9

’106, and ’487 Patents will differ. Thus, any benefit of relation will be negligible, and relation is

10

not necessary to avoid unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense. Moreover, because

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

the instant case and the 6737, 6739, and 6740 cases do not involve the same patents, there is a low

12

risk of inconsistent results. In similar circumstances, other courts in this district have found that

13

cases are not related. See NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C-08-00775-JW, ECF

14

No. 196, (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009); Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Nos. C-00-20905

15

RMW, ECF No. 3861, C-05-334 RMW, C-05-2298 RMW, C-06-244 RMW, C-08-3343 SI, 2008

16

WL 3916304 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2008); Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corporation, No. 16-CV-06925-

17

LHK, ECF No. 198 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2018). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Logitech’s

18

administrative motion to the extent it seeks to relate the 6737, 6739, and 6740 cases to the instant

19

case. See Mot.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: December 5, 2018
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

26
27
28

3
Case No. 18-CV-01304-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED