Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00710/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00710-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation, COMMUNITY TRUST FINANCIAL

CORPORATION, a Louisiana corporation, and

COMMUNITY TRUST BANK, a Louisiana

corporation,

Defendants. /

DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Counterdefendant. /

No. C 10-00710 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR STAY

INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement action, defendant Digital Insight Corporation moves to stay the

proceedings as to the other named defendants until after the infringement claims against Digital

Insight are decided. Plaintiff opposes this motion. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s

motion for a stay is DENIED.

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 38 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff Mshift, Inc., is suing Digital Insight, Community Trust Financial Corporation

(“CTFC”), and Community Trust Bank (“CTB”) for patent infringement. CTB is a wholly owned

subsidiary of CTFC. Asserted is U.S. Patent No. 6,950,881, entitled “System for Converting

Wireless Communications for a Mobile Device.” Though plaintiff does not mention in its

complaint which of defendants’ products or services are infringing on plaintiff’s patent, Digital

Insight believes that the only product that is remotely related to this patent is its mobile-banking

service. CTFC and CTB, according to Digital Insight, are only customers who purchase and

use Digital Insight’s mobile-banking service but otherwise play no role in operating this service. 

Digital Insight alleges that plaintiff, in an effort to disrupt Digital Insight’s business, chose to

sue these particular customers because of their small size and substantial distance from this

forum — CTB is headquartered in Louisiana with branches in Mississippi and Texas. 

Digital Insight also alleges that plaintiff has sent emails to other customers threatening lawsuits. 

Since Digital Insight is the provider and operator of the service that is likely at issue, it wishes

to stay the proceeding with regards to their customers, CTFC and CTB, to simplify this case.

Although the Court is sympathetic to the possibility that these customer defendants have

been added merely to harass, plaintiff asserts that CTFC and CTB are essential parties to this

controversy and that they are in possession of necessary discovery for plaintiff to prove its claims

and defend against Digital Insight’s counterclaims. Plaintiff has the right to bring infringement

claims against parties that have possibly infringed on its patents, therefore, Digital Insight’s

motion for a stay is DENIED. Defense counsel will wind up representing all three defendants,

so it is doubtful that the burden on the Louisiana entities will be substantial. Digital Insight

will be indemnifying and paying for the defense, so the Louisiana entities will not be much

inconvenienced. Going forward, however, plaintiff must request leave of court in advance to

add any more defendants; this is without prejudice to third-party discovery requests to customers. 

Discovery against the Louisiana banks will be limited as follows: no document discovery may

be directed to them that can be fully responded to by Digital Insight so long as the latter does

so timely and promptly; five interrogatories may be directed to them but not more (no subparts);

one deposition per Louisiana defendant may be conducted. No requests to admit may be directed

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 38 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to them. Attorney Valentine’s letter is appreciated but since the stay is denied the Louisiana

entities are not bound by the pledge therein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 38 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 3