Fiber, LLC v. Ciena Corporation, et al

Filing 89

MINUTE ORDER; 85 Finisar Corporations (Finisar) UnopposedMotion for Finisar Corporation to Intervene as a Defendant Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 is GRANTED. Finisar is permitted to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Finisar shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before April 18, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/4/16.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00840-PAB-KLM
(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 15-cv-01743-PAB-KLM)
FIBER, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIENA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
CIENA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
FIBER, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
VIAVI SOLUTIONS, INC., formerly known as JDS Uniphase Corporation,
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS, INC.,
LUMENTUM INC., and
LUMENTUM OPERATIONS, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Finisar Corporation’s (“Finisar”) Unopposed
Motion for Finisar Corporation to Intervene as a Defendant Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24
[#85] (the “Motion”). Finisar seeks leave to intervene as a defendant in the present action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) (allowing intervention as of right) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1)(B) (allowing permissive intervention). No current party is opposed to the Motion.
See [#85] at 1.
It is within the Court’s discretion whether to grant a motion for permissive
intervention under Rule 24(b). See, e.g., City of Stilwell v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Co-op.
-1-

Corp., 79 F.3d 1038, 1043 (10th Cir. 1996). Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) states: “On timely
motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that
shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Having examined the entire
docket, the Court finds that Finisar meets this standard. In short, Finisar argues that that
since its “products are implicated by [Plaintiff’s] infringement contentions, Finisar will at
least raise defenses of non-infringement and invalidity. Both of these defenses share
common questions of law and fact with the main action.” Motion [#85] at 14. Finisar further
states that “how to construe the asserted claims is a common question of law necessary
to resolve both [Plaintiff’s] allegations and Finisar’s defenses, and precisely how Finisar’s
products work is a common question of fact.” Id.
Further, in making this determination, the Court “must consider whether the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). Here, Finisar filed the Motion within about three weeks of
receiving Plaintiff’s infringement contentions, and approximately two months after the
Scheduling Conference held on January 19, 2016. Finisar anticipates only requesting a
brief extension of time to properly prepare its invalidity contentions, the current deadline for
which is April 19, 2016. The other parties in this lawsuit are unopposed to intervention by
Finisar. Thus, the Court finds that intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties’ rights. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#85] is GRANTED. Finisar is permitted
to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B).1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Finisar shall answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint on or before April 18, 2016.
Dated: April 4, 2016

1

Accordingly, the Court need not reach Finisar’s argument regarding whether it should be
permitted to intervene as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).

-2-