Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02929/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02929-2/pdf.json

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

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Island corporation,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Islands corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

California corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS AND

COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-2000 CW

No. C 06-2929 CW

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 57 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPS), Asustek Computer, Inc.,

Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation Limited (ASMC) and

Michael Hsing (collectively, Movants) request that the Court

consolidate for all purposes the above-captioned related cases:

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro International Limited,

04-2000 CW and O2 Micro International Limited v. Monolithic Power

Systems, Inc., 06-2929 CW. O2 Micro filed a statement of nonopposition. Delta Electronics, Inc. and Delta Productions

Corporation filed a response. The matter was submitted on the

papers. Having considered all the papers submitted by the parties,

the Court grants the motion to consolidate. 

BACKGROUND

In May, 2004, MPS filed the 04-2000 suit in this district

against O2 Micro for a declaratory judgment finding O2 Micro's U.S.

Patent No. 6,396,722 (the '722 patent) invalid and not infringed. 

O2 Micro counterclaimed and added ASMC as a counterdefendant. 

Five months after MPS filed suit in this Court, O2 Micro filed

suit in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing MPS of infringing

O2 Micro's U.S. Patent No. 6,804,129 (the '129 patent). O2 Micro

amended its complaint, asserting that ASMC infringed the '129

patent and that Asustek and Compal Electronics, Inc. infringed the

'129 patent, the '722 patent and O2 Micro's U.S. Patent No.

6,259,614 (the '615 patent). The three patents relate to the same

technology: the '129 patent is a continuation of the '722 patent,

which is a continuation of the '615 patent. Various cross-claims

and counterclaims were filed, and new parties were added. The 

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 57 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 4
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

1

The Delta parties also note that, if the Court orders

consolidation, a conflict issue may arise relating to MPS' counsel

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati. No other party mentions this

possible conflict, which can be addressed, if necessary, after the

cases are consolidated.

3

Texas action was transferred to this Court, and assigned Case

No. 06-2929. Shortly after the Texas case was transferred, the

Court found the 06-2929 case to be related to the 04-2000 case.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits consolidation of

"actions involving a common question of law or fact." To determine

whether to consolidate, a court weighs the interest in judicial

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and

prejudice caused by consolidation. See Southwest Marine, Inc. v.

Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal.

1989). As the Ninth Circuit instructs, "Consolidation is within

the broad discretion of the district court." In re Adams Apple,

Inc., 829 F. 2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 There is no question that these two cases involve common

questions of law and fact; no party disputes it. In O2 Micro's

statement of non-opposition, it states that it does not oppose

consolidation of the two cases if consolidation is done in a manner

which is not prejudicial to O2 Micro. In the Delta parties'

response, they note that, while they take no position with respect

to the consolidation of the above cases, they object to the

prosecution of these cases against them, and, accordingly, have

filed motions to dismiss.1 Because of the similarities between the

04-2000 and 06-2929 actions, judicial efficiency will be served by 

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 57 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

consolidating these actions. Although the Court may bifurcate the

trial should it appear after discovery and motion practice that a

single trial of all of the issues in this case will be overly

complex, the Court grants Movants' motion to consolidate these two

actions. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to

Consolidate (Docket No. 253 in 04-2000; Docket No. 14 in 06-2929).

All further filings in these cases shall be made under Case No.

C 04-2000 CW. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/9/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02929-CW Document 57 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 4