Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05787/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05787-0/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

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC., et al.

Defendants.

 

INTEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

v.

PATRIOTIC SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

No. C 03-5787 SBA

 C 04-0439 SBA

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel filed by the

law firms of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP and Beatie and Osborn LLP (collectively,

"Patriot's counsel"). Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers

submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The Court

hereby GRANTS Patriot's counsel's Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel.

BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2003, Patriot Scientific Corporation ("Patriot") filed a complaint against Fujitsu

Microelectronics America, Inc. ("Fujitsu") for patent infringement of United States Patent No. 5,809,336 (the

"'336 patent"). On or about the same time, Patriot filed four other similar actions for patent infringement against

Case 4:03-cv-05787-SBA Document 114 Filed 05/19/05 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

Sony Corporation ofAmerica ("Sony"), Toshiba America, Inc. ("Toshiba"), Matsushita Electric Corporation

of America ("Matsushita"), and NEC USA, Inc. ("NEC"). 

On February 2, 2004, Intel Corporation ("Intel") filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against

Patriot (hereinafter the "Intel action"). In the Intel action, Intel seeks an order declaring that Intel has not

infringed any claim of the '336 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

On February 13, 2004, Patriotfiled a complaint for declaratory judgment against DanielE. Leckrone,

Charles H. Moore, and Technology Properties Ltd. ("TPL") (hereinafter the "Moore action"). In the Moore

action, Patriot seeks declaratory judgment for determination and correction of inventorship and ownership of

the '336 patent. 

On March 11, 2004, Patriot filed an amended consolidated complaint, thereby consolidating all five

of its lawsuits against Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, Matsushita, and NEC into one action (hereinafter the "Fujitsu

action").

On June 8, 2004, this Court stayed the Fujitsu action and the Intel action pending resolution of the

Moore action. 

On December 20, 2004, defendants in the Moore action moved to disqualify Patriot's counsel,

including the law firms of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP and Beatie and Osborn LLP, on the

grounds that they improperly retained and communicated with the attorney for the inventors during the

prosecution of the '336 patent. On March 8, 2005, Judge Fogel granted in pertinent part the motion to

disqualify. Patriot's request for reconsideration was denied by Judge Fogel on March 29, 2005.

ANALYSIS

Local Rule 11-5(a) permits an attorney to withdraw as counsel ofrecord only with leave ofthe court.

L. R. 11-5(a). Permission to withdraw is discretionary. See, e.g., Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, 694

F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir. 1982). Under Local Rule 11-5(b), leave to withdraw may be subject to the

condition that papers may continue to be served on counselforforwarding purposes, unless and until the client

appears by other counsel or pro se. L. R. 11-5(b). 

Here, the law firms of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP and Beatie and Osborn LLP

("Patriot's counsel"), seek to withdraw as counsel of record from the instant actions due to the fact that they

have been disqualified as counsel in the Moore action. In support of their Motion to Withdraw, Patriot's

Case 4:03-cv-05787-SBA Document 114 Filed 05/19/05 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

3

counsel assert that the Moore, Intel, and Fujitsu actions all involve the same family of patents, evidence, and

witnesses. Accordingly, the rationale supporting Judge Fogel's disqualification of Patriot's counsel in Moore

applies with equal force in the instant actions. Patriot's counsel also state that Patriot and the other parties to

the instant actions will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal because the instant actions are currently stayed

pending resolution ofthe Moore action. Intel, Matsushita, Sony, NEC, and Toshiba have stated that they do

not oppose Patriot's counsel's Motion to Withdraw. 

Based on Judge Fogel's ruling, Patriot's counsel has demonstrated the existence of good cause

warranting their withdrawal. Because Patriotis a corporation, however, it must be represented by a licensed

attorney. See Local Rule 3-9(b); Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) ("It has

been the law forthe better part oftwo centuries . . . that a corporationmay appear in federalcourt only through

licensed counsel."); accord United States v. Unimex, 991 F.2d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Counselis essential

for a corporation at trial because it cannot appear pro se."). Thus, in order to proceed in the instant actions,

Patriotmustobtain new counsel. Until Patriot retains counsel, papers shall continue to be served for forwarding

purposes on the law firmofBramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP, which is Patriot's California counsel.

 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Patriot's counsel's Motion for Leave to Withdraw is

GRANTED. However, Patriot's counsel's request to have the Clerk of Court accept service on behalf of

Patriot is DENIED. Instead, the law firm of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP shall continue to

receive service on behalf of Patriot for forwarding purposes until such time as Patriot is able to retain

counsel. Counsel shall notify Patriot of this condition. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Patriot is directed to obtain new counsel within thirty (30)

days of the date of this Order. Failure to retain new counsel may result in a dismissal of the abovecaptioned actions without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties in the above-captioned actions shall appear for a

telephonic Case Management Conference on Wednesday, July 14, 2005 at 2:45 p.m. The parties shall

meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement

which shall be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the Case Management Conference. The Case

Case 4:03-cv-05787-SBA Document 114 Filed 05/19/05 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

Management Conference Statement shall specifically addressthe current status of the instant actions,

including whetherthere are any issues for this Court to resolve priorto the resolutionof the Moore

action which would justify keeping these cases open in the Court's active docket, or whether the

instant actions should be dismissedwithout prejudice pending resolution of the Moore action. If the

parties determine thatthe instant actions should not be dismissedwithoutprejudice,the partiesshall

clearly identify the matters to be heard by this Court and shall provide the Court with a proposed

scheduling order that sets forth the earliest possible dates for discovery cut-off, motion cut-off,

pretrial, and trial. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Intel Corporation shall be responsible for filing the statement

as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the

above indicated date and time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 5-19-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-05787-SBA Document 114 Filed 05/19/05 Page 4 of 4