Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP. et al
Filing
221
ORDER denying without prejudice 98 Motion to Substitute Party. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 08/16/11. cc:attys 8-18-11 (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL
Plaintiff,
vs.
SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ET AL
Defendant.
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISK DOCTORS LABS, INC. ET AL
Defendant.
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL
Plaintiff,
vs.
NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP.
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 6:10-CV-373
PATENT CASE
CASE NO. 6:10-CV-471
PATENT CASE
CASE NO. 6:10-CV-472
PATENT CASE
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
ENGRASP, INC. ET AL
Defendant.
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
BMC SOFTWARE, INC., ET AL
Defendant.
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
FOXIT CORP., ET AL
Defendant.
CASE NO. 6:10-CV-591
PATENT CASE
CASE NO. 6:10-CV-636
PATENT CASE
CASE NO. 6:10-CV-691
PATENT CASE
ORDER
Before the Court are Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc (Singapore) Private Limited’s Motions
To Substitute Parties Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c). (Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony
Corp. of America, No. 610cv373, Doc. No. 105, “MOTION;” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Disk Doctors Labs,
2
Inc., No. 610cv471, Doc. No. 130; Uniloc USA Inc. v. National Instruments Corp., No. 610cv472,
Doc. No. 98; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Engrasp, Inc., No. 610cv591, Doc. No. 120; Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
BMC Software, Inc., No. 610cv636, Doc. No. 45; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Foxit Corp., No. 610cv691;
Doc. No. 53). Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court DENIES Uniloc’s motions.
BACKGROUND
Uniloc USA, Inc. (“Uniloc USA”) and Uniloc (Singapore) Private Limited (“Uniloc
Singapore”) (collectively “Uniloc”) move the Court to substitute Uniloc Luxembourg for Uniloc
Singapore. MOTION at 1. Frederic Richardson III, the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216
(“patent-in-suit”), sold and assigned all IP rights to the patent application that ultimately became the
patent-in-suit to Uniloc Singapore. MOTION at 1. Uniloc Singapore oversaw the prosecution of the
patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”). (Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony Corp.
of America, No. 610cv373, Doc. No. 112, “RESPONSE”at 1)1. In September 2003, Uniloc Singapore
granted an exclusive license to the patent-in-suit to Uniloc USA, who subsequently filed suit in
Rhode Island. RESPONSE at 2. The litigation in Rhode Island has twice gone to the Federal Circuit
and has now been remanded and reassigned to the District Court of Massachusetts. MOTION at 2.
The Complaint in this case was filed by Uniloc USA and Uniloc Singapore. Through a
subsequent reorganization, Uniloc Singapore is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Uniloc
Luxembourg. Id. at 2. Uniloc Singapore is a holding company with no employees, officers or
facilities; its sole asset is the patent-in-suit. (Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, No.
1
Defendants have filed responses that are virtually identical; thus, the Court will cite to the response filed
in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, No. 610cv373, unless otherwise indicated.
3
610cv373, Doc. No. 115, “REPLY” at 3)2. Uniloc Singapore’s board consists of Brad Davis (Uniloc
USA) and Uniloc’s local Singapore counsel. Id. at 4. On January 26, 2011, Uniloc Singapore
assigned all rights, title and interest to the patent-in-suit to Uniloc Luxembourg. MOTION at 2.
Uniloc Singapore has no remaining assets and will be dissolved into its parent company according
to Singapore corporate law. REPLY at 4. Accordingly, Uniloc requests that Uniloc Luxembourg,
as sole successor to the patent-in-suit, be substituted for Uniloc Singapore for all purposes of this
litigation pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 25(c).
ANALYSIS
“If an interest is transferred, the action may be continued by or against the original party
unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted in the action or joined with the
original party.” FED.R.CIV.P. 25(c). “Rule 25 does not substantively determine what actions survive
the transfer of an interest; rather, it provides substitution procedures for an action that does survive.”
ELCA Enters., Inc. v. Sisco Equip. Rental & Sales, Inc., 53 F.3d 186, 191 (8th Cir. 1995).
Defendants oppose the request for substitution on two grounds. Defendants first contend that
if Uniloc Singapore is dismissed from this action, this Court will release that entity from the
jurisdiction of this Court, along with its personnel and documents, relinquishing the subpoena
power of this Court over relevant discovery. RESPONSE at 4. Defendants assert that removing a
foreign entity from the jurisdiction of the Court will increase both the cost and relative difficulty of
obtaining discovery from a foreign non-party. Id. at 4. Defendants next contend that Uniloc has not
provided evidence that Uniloc Luxembourg has assumed all assets and liabilities of Uniloc
2
Plaintiff has filed one reply in all cases; thus, the Court will cite to the reply filed in Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
Sony Corp. of America, No. 610cv373.
4
Singapore. Id. at 5. Accordingly, Defendants argue that dismissing Uniloc Singapore from this
litigation will deprive Defendants of the ability to pursue all remedies available against Uniloc
Singapore. Id.
Once Uniloc Singapore assigned the patent-in-suit to Uniloc Luxembourg, it had no
remaining assets, employees, officers or facilities and, according to Uniloc’s representation, Uniloc
Singapore will cease to exist. Given that Uniloc Singapore has no employees or officers, Defendants
are unlikely to be deprived of any deposition testimony in this case. While Uniloc Singapore has
two Board members, one member, Brad Davis, currently sits on the Board of Uniloc USA and
Luxembourg, while the other is merely Uniloc’s local corporate counsel in Singapore. Assuming
Mr. Davis has any relevant, non-privileged information, Defendants are free to notice his deposition.
Uniloc Singapore has also transferred a copy of all its non-public documents to Uniloc USA,
a remaining plaintiff in this case; therefore, Defendants are unlikely to be deprived of any relevant
discovery. Uniloc further represents that it will continue to provide discovery to Defendants as if
Uniloc Singapore were the surviving entity. Uniloc also represents that Uniloc Luxembourg has
assumed all of Uniloc Singapore’s assets and liabilities. As such, Defendants are unlikely to be
prevented from pursuing their counterclaims against either Uniloc USA or Luxembourg.
Despite the Court’s inclination that Defendants are unlikely to be deprived of any relevant
discovery or from pursing their full remedies by way of this substitution, the Court is cognizant of
Defendants’ concerns. Uniloc Singapore and Uniloc Luxembourg have conveyed a security
agreement related to the patent-in-suit to a separate entity named IMF (Australia) Ltd. which Uniloc,
with scant explanation, discounts as irrelevant. See (Uniloc USA v. Engrasp, Inc, 6:10cv591; Doc.
No. 145 at EX. A). A mere declaration from a member of Uniloc’s board may have explained this
5
conveyance, but on the current record, the Court can not merely ignore the conveyance as irrelevant.
Defendants also represent that Uniloc has failed to provide any information regarding why Uniloc
Singapore changed from being a subsidiary of an Australian company, Uniloc Corporation Pty. Ltd.,
to a subsidiary of Uniloc Luxembourg, only to be later dissolved. See (Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Foxit
Corp., 610cv691; Doc. No. 3). Without more explanation or evidence, the Court can not fully
determine the consequences, if any, the requested substitution will have on this litigation.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Uniloc’s motion to substitute Uniloc Luxembourg for
Uniloc Singapore, without prejudice, until the details of the transaction between Uniloc Singapore
and Uniloc Luxembourg can be discovered. In lieu of a wholesale substitution, the Court invites
Uniloc to file a motion joining Uniloc Luxembourg as a plaintiff in this action.3 The Court also
cautions both Uniloc and Defendants from using this seemingly routine substitution procedure to
shield any relevant discovery or to undermine the other sides ability from pursuing its claims.
Should the Court find that Uniloc or Defendants have used this substitution procedure, or opposition
thereof, to undermine the orderly resolution of this litigation, the Court will not hesitate to fashion
an appropriate sanction.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of August, 2011.
__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Defendants have indicated that they are not opposed to such a joinder. See e.g. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Disk
Doctors Labs, Inc., 610cv471, Doc. No. 147 at 5.
6
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?