CG Technology Development, LLC et al v. Zynga, Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER granting the Motions to Consolidate (ECF No. 76 in 2:16-cv-801, ECF No. 47 in 2:16-cv-856, ECF No. 38 in 2:16-cv-857, ECF No. 62 in 2:16-cv-858, ECF No. 50 in 2:16-cv-859, ECF No. 41 in 2:16-cv-871), consolidating for pretrial purpose s cases 2:16-cv-856, 2:16-cv-857, 2:16-cv-858, 2:16-cv-859, and 2:16-cv-871 under 2:16-cv-801 -- all filings to be made in Lead Case only until further notice; directing Clerk to enter copy of this Order into dockets of each of the cases. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ______________________________________ ) CG TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC ) ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FANDUEL, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) 2:16-cv-00801-RCJ-VCF ORDER 12 13 These related cases arise out of the alleged infringement of several patents relating to 14 online gambling. Pending before the Court in each of the cases is a motion to consolidate the 15 cases for pretrial purposes. Defendants in Case Nos. 2:16-cv-801, 2:16-cv-856, and 2:16-cv-871 16 have indicated in response that they do not oppose consolidation of all six cases for pretrial 17 purposes. Defendants in Case Nos. 2:16-cv-857, 2:16-cv-858, and 2:16-cv-859, however, have 18 indicated in response that they consent only to the consolidation of those three cases for pretrial 19 purposes, noting that due to several previous rulings those three cases concern only U.S. Patent 20 No. RE39,818 but that the other three cases concern several other patents. 21 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it would be more economical to consolidate all six 22 cases for the purposes of pretrial proceedings, particularly claim construction. The latter three 23 cases and the former three cases are not, as several Defendants argue, “very different.” Before 24 1 of 2 1 the Court’s previous rulings, there was significant overlap of patents in issue in the cases, and all 2 six of the cases still include the ‘818 patent. It would be uneconomical to conduct separate claim 3 construction proceedings on the same patent. CONCLUSION 4 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Consolidate (ECF No. 76 in Case No. 6 2:16-cv-801, ECF No. 47 in Case No. 2:16-cv-856, ECF No. 38 in Case No. 2:16-cv-857, ECF 7 No. 62 in Case No. 2:16-cv-858, ECF No. 50 in Case No. 2:16-cv-859, ECF No. 41 in Case No. 8 2:16-cv-871) are GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the cases are CONSOLIDATED for pretrial purposes, 10 with Case No. 2:16-cv-801 as the Lead Case and the other cases as Member Cases. All filings 11 shall be made in the Lead Case only until further notice. 12 13 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter a copy of this Order into the dockets of each of the cases. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 25ththday of October, 2016. Dated: This 12 day of December, 2016. 16 17 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 of 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?