Siemens Industry, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al

Filing 1

Copy of MEMORANDUM AND ORDER in C.A. 16-284 LPS. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 10/16/2017. (jcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES;DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., 1 7- 1 4 4 9 Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 16-284-LPS-CJB WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (d/b/a WABTEC CORPORATION) and WABTEC RAILWAY ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER Having reviewed the parties' briefing relating to Plaintiff's motion to assign a civil action number and enjoin Defendants from prosecuting a second-filed action (D.L 142), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: , 1. I Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of Court is directed to OPEN a new case in which Plaintiff may, ifit wishes, proceed with its declaratory judgment I , counterclaims relating to Defendants' patents. The <rourt will determine, at an appropriate time, after hearing from the parties, whether this new action should be stayed, transferred, dismissed, or proceed (and, if so, on what schedule). 2. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED in all other respects, including its request that the Court enjoin Defendants from proceeding with their 'pending action in the Western District of Pennsylvania. I While it may have been that the Magistrate Judge, and one or both parties, anticipated I 1 that when Plaintiff's motion to sever was granted thal Defendants would file a new action in this District (asserting Defendants' patent claims that were severed from the instant action), , I Defendants were not required to file any new action.1 More importantly, nothing in the Court's. I '. prior rulings, nor the Federal RulesĀ· of Civil Procedme, compelled Defendants - having decided to assert their patents in a new action against Plaintiff - to file in this District. The Court . I , I perceives no meritorious basis to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with their "second-filed" ! action. Notably, Plaintiff persuaded the Magistrate J6dge that the patent claims Defendarits are asserting against Plaintiff have little if any overlap Jith the patent claims Plaintiff is asserting I I I against Defendants in the instant action. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants' decision to file a new action in ! the WestemDistrict does not automatically mean that Plaintiff's declaratory judgment I , counterclaims relating to Defendants' patents must 'I against Plaintiff's wishes - necessarily be . I litigated in that District. It may well be sensible to n:ansfer Plaintiff's counterclaims to the Western District, but that is a matter the Court will decide (should it be asked to do so) in the context of the new action to be opened in this DiStriJt. I I I To the extent not already clear, Defendants' 60unterclaims (i.e., Defendants' assertion of I 1 Defendants' patents against Plaintiff) in the instant aption are DISMISSED WITHOUT . I PREJUDICE to Defendants' proceeding with those ~ame claims in the pending action in the Western District. I !i~ p.~ October 16, 2017 Wilmington, Delaware HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK 0NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?