Broadnet Teleservices, LLC v. Shoutpoint, Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER granting 100 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Civil Action No. 15-cv-00940-CBS is CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action No. 12-cv-02921-CMA-KMT for all purposes. Civil Action 15-cv-00940-CBS is REASSIGNED to Judge Christine M. Arguello and Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, and shall bear Civil Action No. 15-cv-00940-CMA-KMT. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 08/04/2015.(athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02921-CMA-KMT (Consolidated for all purposes with Civil Action
No. 15-cv-00940-CMA-KMT)
BROADNET TELESERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHOUTPOINT, INC., and
VICTORY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Broadnet Teleservices, LLC (“Broadnet”)
and Defendants Shoutpoint, Inc. and Victory Solutions, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”)
Joint Motion to Consolidate. (Case No. 12-cv-02921-CMA-KMT, Doc. # 100.) Because
common questions of law and fact predominate in both case number 12-cv-02921CMA-KMT (“Broadnet I”) and case number 15-cv-00940-CBS (“Broadnet II”), the Court
grants the motion.
I.

BACKGROUND

Both cases proposed for consolidation include the same accused products and
parties and related patents. The asserted U.S. patent numbers 8,266,535 (Broadnet I),
8,881,027 (Broadnet II), and 9,081,485 (Broadnet II) all share the same specification.
The three patents ultimately claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application

No. 60/825,248, titled “Teleforum Apparatus and Method,” which was filed on
September 11, 2006. All three patents are directed to systems and methods for
conducting teleforum conference calls. Broadnet alleges that the same
teleconferencing products and services infringe all three patents. Additionally, the
parties and counsel involved in both cases are the same. Broadnet is represented in
both cases by Holland & Hart, LLP and Defendants are represented in both cases by
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP and Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), “[i]f actions before the court
involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.”1
This rule allows the Court “to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the
business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing
justice to the parties.” Breaux v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D.
Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2381 at 427 (2d
ed.1995)). The decision whether to consolidate cases is committed to this Court’s
sound discretion. Adams v. Veolia Transp., No. 11–cv–02491–PAB–KMT, 2012 WL
171470, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2012) (citing Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344
(10th Cir. 1978)).
For a number of reasons, common questions of law and fact predominate in
these two cases such that consolidation is appropriate and efficacious. First, the parties
are the same in both cases. Second, the three asserted patents are all related and
1

The district judge to whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation is
assigned determines whether consolidation is proper. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1.
2

directed to teleforum conferencing systems and methods. Third, Broadnet claims
infringement and relief that is similar in both cases: damages and an injunction. Fourth,
the accused products and systems are identical in both cases. Fifth, counsel is the
same in both cases.
Further, the parties will be able to proceed with fact and expert discovery in a
more efficient and less costly manner, and consolidation will allow the Court to avoid
deciding similar issues in two separate cases and conducting two separate trials. See
C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 562 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1346 (D. Kan. 2008) (“[T]he court
should take into consideration whether judicial efficiency is best served by
consolidation.”).
III.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, it is ORDERED that:
1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Consolidate (Doc. # 100) is GRANTED. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action No. 15-cv00940-CBS is CONSOLIDATED with Civil Action No. 12-cv-02921-CMA-KMT for
all purposes.
2. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action 15-cv-00940-CBS is
REASSIGNED to Judge Christine M. Arguello and Magistrate Judge Kathleen M.
Tafoya, and shall bear Civil Action No. 15-cv-00940-CMA-KMT.
3. All future filings in these consolidated actions shall be captioned as set forth in
the above caption.
4. The March 5, 2013 Scheduling Order (Doc. # 25) and September 26, 2013
Protective Order (Doc. # 52) in Broadnet I shall apply to the consolidated cases.
The case schedule provided in the Scheduling Order (Doc. # 25) is modified for
the consolidated cases as follows:

3

Broadnet II Schedule
Description
Defendants’ Response to Broadnet’s Amended Complaint

Deadline
8/17/2015

Broadnet’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

9/11/2015

Defendants’ Reply Supporting Motion to Dismiss

9/28/2015

Broadnet’s Disclosure of asserted claims

10/30/2015

Broadnet’s Infringement contentions

12/4/2015

Defendants’ Prior art statement

1/8/2016

Parties’ Exchange claim terms for construction

1/15/2016

Parties Exchange claim constructions for disputed terms

1/27/2016

File Joint claim construction statement

2/10/2016

Broadnet's opening claim construction brief

3/11/2016

Defendants’ responsive claim construction brief

4/11/2016

Broadnet’s reply claim construction brief

5/2/2016

Claim construction hearing and technology tutorial

Subject to the Court’s
availability

Broadnet I and II Consolidated Schedule
Description
Deadline to amend pleadings regarding willful infringement
and inequitable conduct
Deadline to amend Infringement contentions and Prior art
statement
Close of fact discovery

Deadline
15 days after Order on
Claim Construction in
Broadnet II

60 days after Order on
Claim Construction in
Broadnet II
4

Initial expert reports on which a party bears the burden of
proof

45 days after Close of
fact discovery

Rebuttal expert reports

30 days after initial
expert reports

Close of expert discovery

30 days after rebuttal
expert reports

Dispositive motion deadline (summary judgment motions
may be brought in advance of this deadline)

30 days after close of
expert discovery

DATED: August 4, 2015
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

5