Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03672/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03672-0/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

FUJITSU LIMITED, a Japanese

corporation, and FUJITSU

MICROELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP., a Taiwanese

corporation, and NANYA TECHNOLOGY

CORP., U.S.A., a California

corporation,

Defendants. /

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP., a Taiwanese

corporation, and NANYA TECHNOLOGY

CORP., U.S.A., a California

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FUJITSU LIMITED, a Japanese

corporation, and FUJITSU

MICROELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a

California corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-6613 CW

No. C 07-3672 CW

ORDER CONCERNING

MOTION TO

CONSIDER UPDATED

CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT (DOCKET

NOS. 121, 125)

AND CONSOLIDATING

CASES 

Case 4:07-cv-03672-CW Document 4 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 5
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

On September 13, 2006, Nanya Technology Corp. filed suit

against Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc.

(collectively, Fujitsu) in the District of Guam. A month later,

Fujitsu filed suit against Nanya Technology Corp. and Nanya

Technology Corp. U.S.A. (collectively, Nanya) in this Court. On

July 27, 2007, the Guam District Court ordered the Guam action

immediately transferred to this district, where it was assigned

Case No. 07-3672 JL. The Court related the 07-3672 action to the

06-6613 action. The order relating the cases provides, "All case

management dates set in C-06-6613 shall apply to C-07-3672." Prior

to the Court relating the cases, Nanya and Fujitsu jointly filed a

motion requesting that the Court consider the issues raised in

their Updated Joint Case Management Statement. The Court now does

so.

I. Consolidation

The first issue the parties raise is consolidation of the two

actions. 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. Although the

Case 4:07-cv-03672-CW Document 4 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 5
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

parties do not formally move to consolidate the actions, they state

that the actions should be consolidated. Judicial efficiency will

be served by consolidating these actions; therefore, the Court

consolidates the 06-6613 and 07-3672 actions. All further filings

in these cases shall be made under the 06-6613 case. 

II. Severance of Causes of Action

Fujitsu proposes that, if the two actions are consolidated,

the Court sever Nanya's anti-trust counterclaims and patent misuse

affirmative defense from the patent and state law claims. It

requests that the anti-trust issues be stayed pending resolution of

the patent and state law claims. Because Nanya's patent misuse

defense is similar to its anti-trust claims, Fujitsu contends that 

Nanya's patent misuse defense similarly should be stayed. Fujitsu

notes that, in similar situations in the past, the Court has

bifurcated and stayed anti-trust issues, delaying discovery on

anti-trust issues until after the patent case has been tried. As

another court in this district has recognized, "It is a common

practice in federal court to stay antitrust counterclaims until

after the trial of the invalidity issue." Chip-Mender, Inc. v.

Sherwin-Williams Co., 2006 WL 13058, *13 (N.D. Cal.) (bifurcating

anti-trust counterclaims and staying discovery on those claims

"because the benefits to be derived from a stay will outweigh any

prejudice" and because resolution of the patent invalidity issue

"may dispose of the antitrust counterclaims altogether").

Nanya proposes the opposite. It contends that the patent

claims and Fujitsu's state law claims should be severed and stayed

pending resolution of Nanya's anti-trust claims and patent misuse

Case 4:07-cv-03672-CW Document 4 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Nanya requests that the patent issues be stayed pending the

re-examination before the PTO. According to Fujitsu, the PTO has

not yet decided whether it will re-examine five of the eighteen

patents at issue in this litigation. Further, if Nanya seeks to

stay this case pending re-examination, it must do so through a

properly noticed motion to stay.

4

defense. It notes that it has requested that the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office (PTO) re-examine five of Fujitsu's patents at

issue in this litigation. Nanya states that, if Fujitsu's five

asserted patents are found to be invalid at the conclusion of the

re-examination or the Court finds that Fujitsu misused its patents

and that the five asserted patents are therefore unenforceable, it

will agree not to prosecute its remaining claims for declaratory

relief as to Fujitsu's other patents so long as Fujitsu does not

assert them in any proceeding against Nanya or its customers. 

Nanya's argument that its proposal would serve the convenience of

the parties and the Court and promote judicial economy is not

persuasive.1

The Court will not try the anti-trust issues first. Rather,

all anti-trust issues and Nanya's patent misuse affirmative defense

shall be severed and stayed until the Court directs otherwise.

III. Need for a case management conference

On February 2, 2007, the Court held a case management

conference in the 06-6613 case and issued a scheduling order. 

Pursuant to the Court's order relating the cases, the case

management dates set in the 06-6613 case shall also apply to

07-3672 case. The next case management conference for these cases

is scheduled for February 1, 2008.

Nanya requests that, in light of the transfer by the Guam

Case 4:07-cv-03672-CW Document 4 Filed 08/01/07 Page 4 of 5
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 5

District Court, a case management conference be held as soon as

possible, before February, 2008. An early case management

conference, however, is not necessary. The Court has ordered that

the case management dates shall be the same for both cases; thus,

there are no longer any conflicting deadlines. Any conflicting

discovery orders shall be addressed by a Magistrate Judge. The

parties are ordered to meet and confer. If they are unable to

reach an agreement concerning any conflicting discovery orders,

Nanya shall file a discovery motion, which the Court will refer to

a Magistrate Judge.

CONCLUSION 

In sum, the 07-3672 action shall be consolidated with the 

06-6613 action. All further filings in these actions shall be made

under Case No. C 06-6613 CW. Case No. C 07-3672 shall be

administratively closed. All anti-trust issues and the patent

misuse affirmative defense are severed and stayed until the Court

directs otherwise. The next case management conference shall be

held on February 5, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/1/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03672-CW Document 4 Filed 08/01/07 Page 5 of 5