Lodsys, LLC v. Combay, Inc. et al

Filing 144

ORDER - the above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be CONSOLIDATED for all pretrial issues (except venue) with the first-filed action, Cause No. 2:11- cv-90. All parties are instructed to file any future motions (except relating to venue) in the first-filed case. Individual cases remain active for venue determinations and trial. The Court will enter one docket control order, one protective order, and one discovery order that will govern the entire consolidated case. All parties to the consolidated case are ordered to meet-and-confer following the upcoming August 29, 2012 scheduling conference to discuss the entry of uniform docket control, protective and discovery orders, which will govern the consolidated case, regardless of whether the same have previously been entered in individual actions. The local rules page limitations for Markman briefs and other motions will apply to the consolidated case. To further promote judicial economy and to conserve the parties resources, the Court encourages the parties to file a notice with the Court in the event that there are other related cases currently pending on the Courts docket that may also be appropriate for consolidation with this case. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/17/2012. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BROTHER INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMBAY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ADDIDAS AMERICA INC., et al.,
Defendants.

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et
al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:11-cv-90-JRG
§ LEAD CASE
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:11-cv-272-JRG
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:11-cv-283-JRG
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:12-cv-284-JRG
§
§
§
§
§

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BECKER PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOSTER AND SMITH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROSETTA STONE, INC.,
Defendant.

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DELL, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:12-cv-286-JRG
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:12-cv-287-JRG
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:12-cv-288-JRG
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:12-cv-289-JRG
§
§
§
§
§

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

LODSYS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GMCI INTERNET OPERATIONS, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:12-cv-290-JRG
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CASE NO. 2:12-cv-291-JRG
§
§
§
§
§

CONSOLIDATION ORDER
The passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), which clarified the joinder
requirements for cases alleging patent infringement, has resulted in a significant increase in the
number of “serially” filed patent cases on the Court’s docket. Similarly, the Federal Circuit’s
recent In re EMC Corp. decision leads to a nearly analogous result for pre-AIA filings because
multi-defendant cases may be severed “[u]nless there is an actual link between the facts underlying
each claim of infringement.” 677 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Such serially filed or
severed cases, by their nature, involve common issues of law or fact, including claim construction
and validity. “If actions before the Court involve a common question of law or fact, the court
may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the
actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

In applying Rule 42, a court has considerable discretion. In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d at 1360; see
also Lurea v. M/V Albeta, 625 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Rule 42(a) provides district courts
with broad authority to consolidate actions that ‘involve a common question of law or fact.’”).
Accordingly, each of the above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be
CONSOLIDATED for all pretrial issues (except venue) with the first-filed action, Cause No.
2:11-cv-90. All parties are instructed to file any future motions (except relating to venue) in the
first-filed case. Individual cases remain active for venue determinations and trial. The Court
will enter one docket control order, one protective order, and one discovery order that will govern
the entire consolidated case. All parties to the consolidated case are ordered to meet-and-confer
following the upcoming August 29, 2012 scheduling conference to discuss the entry of uniform
.
docket control, protective and discovery orders, which will govern the consolidated case,
regardless of whether the same have previously been entered in individual actions. The local
rules’ page limitations for Markman briefs and other motions will apply to the consolidated case.
To further promote judicial economy and to conserve the parties’ resources, the Court encourages
the parties to file a notice with the Court in the event that there are other related cases currently
pending on the Court’s docket that may also be appropriate for consolidation with this case.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of August, 2012.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE