Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02000/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv2000

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and

MULTIMEDIA PATENT TRUST

Plaintiffs and CounterDefendants,

CASE NO. 07-CV-2000-H (CAB)

consisting of matters severed from

the consolidated cases:

CASE NO. 02-CV-2060-B (CAB)

CASE NO. 03-CV-0699-B (CAB)

CASE NO. 03-CV-1108-B (CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO STAY TRIAL OF HASKELL

AND NETRAVALI PATENTS

OR ALTERNATIVELY TO

SEVER THESE PATENTS FOR

CONSOLIDATION WITH CASE

07-CV-747-H (CAB)

vs.

GATEWAY, INC., et al.

Defendants and Counterclaimants.

and

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Intervenor and Counterclaimant

AND RELATED CLAIMS

On November 21, 2007, Dell brought a motion on behalf of defendants and

counterclaimants Dell, Microsoft, and Gateway (“Defendants”), asking the Court either

to stay the trial of the Haskell and Netravali patents, set for February 20, 2008, or to

sever these patents for consolidation with Case 07-CV-747-H (CAB). (Doc. No. 58.)

On December 3, 2007, Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) submitted its opposition to

the motion. (Doc. No. 95.) On December 5, 2007, Defendants submitted their reply

brief. (Doc. No. 97.)

Case 3:07-cv-02000-H-CAB Document 109 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv2000

The Court concludes that this motion is suitable for decision without oral

argument and submits the motion on the papers. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court denies the motion to stay or sever these patents.

Background

This patent case is set for trial on February 20, 2008. On October 1, 2007, the

Court issued a summary judgment order resolving many claims and defenses. Then on

October 26, 2007, MPEG LA, a nonparty to this action, filed a complaint in the

Delaware Chancery Court against Alcatel, Lucent, and MPT. (See Decl. Katherine B.

Farkas Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Stay Ex. 17 (“MPEG LA Compl.”); Decl. Jonas R. McDavit

Supp. MPT’s Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Stay Ex. 1.) MPEG LA contends that Lucent’s

MPEG-2 patents should have become part of the MPEG-2 Patent Pool as a result of the

merger with Alcatel. (See MPEG LA Compl. ¶¶ 1-33.) Defendants already addressed

the effect of the Alcatel-Lucent merger in extensive summary judgment briefing filed

with this Court.

Discussion

I. Motion to Stay

Defendants belatedly seek a stay of this patent action. The Court declines to do

so. A District Court has power to stay proceedings that is “incidental to the power

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North

Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In exercising this power, a court should exercise

its judgment by weighing “competing interests” and maintaining and “even balance.”

Id. at 254-55.

In Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800

(1976), the Supreme Court described limited circumstances in which a federal court

should dismiss a proceeding based on related state court litigation. Under Colorado

River doctrine, a federal court should normally continue to exercise its jurisdiction and

only grant a stay based on pending state court litigation in exceptional circumstances.

See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1,

Case 3:07-cv-02000-H-CAB Document 109 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv2000

13-19 (1983); Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817-21. These cases have identified

nonexclusive factors to consider including, in relevant part: (1) the order in which the

suits were filed, (2) the convenience of the forum, (3) the desirability of avoiding

piecemeal litigation, (4) whether the issue is governed by federal law, and (5) the

adequacy of the state proceeding. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 23-27;

Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818-21. “Only the clearest of justifications will warrant

dismissal” or stay. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818; see also Moses H. Cone Mem’l

Hosp., 460 U.S. at 16, 27-28 (extending Colorado River to stays and indicating that

balance of factors is “heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction”). If

applied here, several of the factors weigh heavily against a stay.

In Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1,

8-13, 27-28 (1983), the Supreme Court noted that Colorado River doctrine also applies

to stays based on related state court proceedings where the stay would effectively

deprive an adversary of a federal forum for an issue within federal jurisdiction. The

Supreme Court indicated that a stay under Colorado River should involve a conclusion

that the parallel state proceeding would provide a complete resolution of the issues. Id.

at 28. Here, the plaintiff in the newly filed state court case is not a party to this patent

litigation, and the state court would not resolve all of the pending issues in this case.

Even under a discretionary standard for staying cases, the Court would not order

a stay under the present circumstances. The cases cited by Defendants support the

Court’s decision. See, e.g., Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 124 F.3d

1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “[o]verarching this balancing [of interests

related to a stay] is the court’s paramount obligation to exercise jurisdiction timely in

cases properly before it”). There have been extensive proceedings in this court on the

patents and other issues. The Delaware litigation was initiated only after Defendants

had ample opportunity to address the effect of the merger in summary judgment

proceedings before this court, leading to the Court’s summary judgment order of

October 1, 2007. 

Case 3:07-cv-02000-H-CAB Document 109 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 07cv2000

In addition to the pending state court litigation, Defendants have raised other

concerns, such as an alleged potential for double recovery if the video patents are not

consolidated with 07-CV-747-H (CAB). The Court has reviewed these arguments and

finds them unpersuasive, taking into account the totality of circumstances of this

litigation. Exercising its discretion, the Court declines to stay the action, having

concluded that he balance of considerations would not support it.

II. Motion to Sever and Consolidate

Alternatively, Defendants seek severance of the video patents for consolidation

with 07-CV-747-H (CAB). District courts have broad discretion to sever or consolidate

claims. See, e.g., Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th Cir. 2000);

Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Central Dist. California, 877

F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court has weighed all appropriate factors, such as the

need for judicial economy and any potential for prejudice to the parties, and concludes

that severance of these patents is not warranted here. The Court exercises its discretion

to deny the request to sever these patents for consolidation with Case No. 07-CV-747-H

(CAB).

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the motion to stay or

alternatively to sever the case. The case shall proceed according to the schedule set by

the Court’s other orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:07-cv-02000-H-CAB Document 109 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 4