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)
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?