2
3
4
5
6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 SAN JOSE DIVISION
10 Intel Corp., NO. C 08-04555 JW
___________________________________/ NO. C 08-05543 JW
ttrr 11 NO. C 08-05544 JW uuoo Broadcom Corp., et al., NO. C 08-05624 SI
aann 12 ___________________________________/ NO. C 08-05742 MHP CC ii
rr oo tt ff cc iill
aa 13 Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., et al., ORDER RELATING CASES; STAYING ii CC rrttss ffoo tt ___________________________________/ CASE DEADLINES; SETTING CASE
ccttss 14 MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ii ii DD rr iiDD Acer America Corp., et al., DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME ss eett nnrreehh 15 ___________________________________/ aa tt
rr tt oo SS NN eehh 16 Sony Computer Entertainment America, ddee tt rr Inc., et al.,
oo 17 tt FF ii nnUU Plaintiffs,
18
v.
19
Wi-LAN, Inc., et al.,
20
Defendants.
21 /
22 A. Motions to Relate Cases
23 Presently before the Court are two administrative motions to relate this action, Intel Corp. v.
24 Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-04555 JW to two later-filed cases in this District, Sony Computer
25 Entertainment America, Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-05742 MHP, and Acer America Corp v.
26 Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-05624 SI. (Docket Item Nos. 41, 43.) On January 16, 2009, the Court
27 related this action to two additional later-filed cases, Broadcom Corp. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-
28 05543 JW, and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. C 08-05544 JW. (See Docket
21 Item No. 38.) Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions to relate.
2 (Docket Item No. 49.)
3 Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides that an action is related to another when:
4 (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and
5 (2) It appears that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense
6 or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges.
7 Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to establish that
8 each of the later-filed cases are substantially related to the Intel action under Local Rule 3-12(a).
9 Since Intel is the first-filed action, the cases are properly related to the Intel action. Accordingly, the
10 Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to relate.
tr 11 B. Case Scheduling u o
an 12 The Court has now related the Intel action to four other declaratory judgment actions C i
r o t f c il
a 13 pending in this District. The Court has also been informed that the patent at issue in the five cases in i C r
f t o s t
cts 14 this District, U.S. Patent No. 6,549,749 (“‘749 patent”), is being asserted by Defendants against i i D r
iD s et nreh 15 Plaintiffs in an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, known as Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Acer, a t
r t o S N eh 16 No. 2:07-CV-473 (TJW) (E.D. Tex.). Relatedly, Defendants in the Broadcom action have moved to d
t e r
o 17 either dismiss or transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas. t F i n U
18 In light of the growing complexity of these related actions, the Court orders as follows:
19 (1) All parties shall appears for the Case Management Conference currently set for
20 March 16, 2009 at 10 a.m. At the Conference, the Court intends to address case
21 consolidation and a global approach for managing Defendants’ motions to dismiss
22 these actions or to transfer them to the Eastern District of Texas. With these issues in
23 mind, on or before March 6, 2009, the parties to all five cases shall collectively file a
24 Joint Case Management Statement.
25 (2) All deadlines in the five related Wi-LAN actions are STAYED.
26 (3) Defendant Intel’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Docket Item No. 31)
27 presently set for March 30, 2009 is taken off calendar until such time as the Court
31 determines the case structure following the March 16, 2009 Case Management
2 Conference.
3 (4) Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time in the Broadcom action (Docket Item No. 11 in
4 Case No. C 08-05543 JW) is DENIED as moot.
5
6 Dated: February 20, 2009
JAMES WARE
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
t 11 r u o
a 12 C i
n r o t f c il
a 13 i C r
f t o s t
c 14 i i D r
ts iD s e n 15
r t e
h a t
r t o S N 16
e h d
t e r
o 17 t F i n U
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
41 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:
2 A. James Isbester jamie@itpatentcounsel.com
Adam R. Alper aalper@kirkland.com
3 Christian Chadd Taylor ctaylor@kirkland.com
Gayle Esther Rosenstein gayle.rosenstein@weil.com
4 George C. Best gbest@foley.com
Gregory S. Arovas garovas@kirkland.com
5 John M. Desmarais jdesmarais@kirkland.com
Megan M Chung mmchung@townsend.com
6 Michael C. Spillner mspillner@orrick.com
Michael Woodrow De Vries mike.devries@lw.com
7
8
Dated: February 20, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 9
10 By: /s/ JW Chambers
Elizabeth Garcia tr 11 Courtroom Deputy u o
a 12 C i
n r o t f c il
a 13 i C r
f t o s t
c 14 i i D r
ts iD s e n 15
r t e
h a t
r t o S N 16
e h d
t e r
o 17 t F i n U
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27