KW-2, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 30

ORDER for Consolidation. Re: Joint motion to consolidate civil actions, filed in Civil Action 15-cv-01023-REB-KMT, seeking consolidation with Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-01024-WJM-MJW and 15-cv-01025-RM-CBS. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/17/2015. (mlace, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15–cv–01023–REB–KMT
KW-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, and
ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01024-WJM-MJW
KW-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01025-RM-CBS
KW-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELL INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Blackburn, J.

This matter is before me on the parties’ Joint Motion To Consolidate Cases
[#30],1 filed August 6, 2015. The parties seek to consolidate Civil Action No. 15-cv01024-WJM-MJW and Civil Action No. 15-cv-01025-RM-CBS with Civil Action No. 15cv-01203-REB-KMT for the purpose of pretrial proceedings only. As the district judge to
whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation is assigned for
trial, the issue whether to consolidate these matters falls to me for determination. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. I grant the motion and consolidate these cases for pretrial
management.
The determination whether to consolidate cases is governed by Rule 42(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, pertinently:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial
of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order
all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay.
FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a).2 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. American Family Mutual
Insurance Co., 220 F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER,
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2381 at 427 (2nd ed. 1995)). The decision

1

“[#30]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2

As the district judge to whom the oldest numbered case involved in the proposed consolidation
is assigned for trial, the question whether to consolidate these matters falls to me for determination.
See D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1.

2

whether to consolidate cases is committed to my sound discretion. Shump v. Balka,
574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978).
As appears from the joint motion, the three cases involve common issues of law
and fact related to the underlying patents-in-suit, including enforceability, validity, and
claims construction. Likewise, defendants suggest they will raise a common challenge
to plaintiff’s standing to bring suit on the patent. In addition, all three cases are in the
early stages of litigation, and consolidation for pretrial management can reasonably be
anticipated to allow the parties to coordinate their efforts and achieve some economies
in the prosecution of their claims and defenses. To the extent issues unique to an
individual case may arise, proceedings can be adjusted readily to address those unique
issues.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the parties’ Joint Motion To Consolidate Cases [#30], filed August 6,
2015, is granted;
2. That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action
No. 15-cv-01024-WJM-MJW and Civil Action No. 15-cv-01025-RM-CBS are
consolidated with Civil Action No. 15-cv-01203-REB-KMT for the purpose of pretrial
management only;
3. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1, Civil Action No. 15-cv-01024-WJM-MJW
and Civil Action No. 15-cv-01025-RM-CBS are reassigned to this court and to
Magistrate Judge Tafoya for the purpose of pretrial management only;

3

4. That the three consolidated actions shall be captioned as shown below:

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01023-REB-KMT
(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-01024-REB-KMT and 15-cv-01025REB-KMT)
KW-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et al.
Defendants.

Dated August 17, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4