Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00971/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00971-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket Nos. 170, 180)

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-01385-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket Nos. 150, 165)

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 12
2

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HTC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02359-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 110)

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HTC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02360-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 126)

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC., et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00364-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 46)

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC., et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00365-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 48)

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 12
3

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HTC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00366-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 49)

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HTC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00367-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 49)

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00962-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 49)

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DELL, INC., et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00971-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

(Re: Docket No. 53)

Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc. alleges that various LTE handset manufacturers and wireless carriers 

infringe two Adaptix patents covering certain wireless technology. These ten cases are just a 

portion of the bigger picture—over the past four years, Adaptix has filed over 35 such cases, both 

here and in the Eastern District of Texas. Most, but not all, of this litigation was and is before the 

undersigned.

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 12
4

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

Broadly speaking, Adaptix filed its cases in four waves.1 After a long, hard slog through 

fact and expert discovery in the Wave 1 cases, the court ultimately granted Defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment of noninfringement and partial invalidity.2 Accordingly, the court entered 

judgment in favor of the Wave 1 Defendants.3 A few months later, the court dismissed some Wave 

2 cases and all the Wave 3 and Wave 4 cases on the grounds of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, 

the Kessler doctrine and the doctrine against claim splitting,

4

and it entered judgment against 

Adaptix in the Wave 3 and Wave 4 cases.5

 

1

In Wave 1, Adaptix sued Motorola, Verizon, Apple, AT&T and HTC. See Case No. 5:13-cv01774: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:13-cv-01777: Docket 

No. 1; Case No. 5:13-cv-01778: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:13-cv-01844: Docket No. 1; Case No. 

5:13-cv-02023: Docket No. 1.

In Wave 2, Adaptix sued Dell, Verizon, Amazon, AT&T, Blackberry, Sony, T-Mobile/MetroPCS, 

HTC, Kyocera, Sprint, ASUSTek, Boost Mobile and ZTE. See Case No. 5:14-cv-01259: Docket 

No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv-01380: Docket No. 1; Case No. 

5:14-cv-01385: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv-01386: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv-01387: 

Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv-02359: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv-02360: Docket No. 1; 

Case No. 5:14-cv-02894: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv-02895: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:14-cv03112: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00166: Docket 

No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00167: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00168: Docket No. 1. Amazon, 

Sony, Blackberry, Dell, Kyocera and ASUStek have settled and are no longer in the cases. See

Case No. 5:14-cv-01259: Docket Nos. 182, 219; Case No. 14-cv-01379: Docket No. 195; Case No. 

14-cv-01380: Docket No. 113; Case No. 14-cv-01385: Docket No. 201; Case No. 14-cv-01386: 

Docket No. 120; Case No. 14-cv-01387: Docket No. 117; Case No. 14-cv-02894: Docket No. 194; 

Case No. 14-cv-03112: Docket No. 137.

In Wave 3, Adaptix filed four new cases against most of the Wave 1 Defendants after the court 

denied it leave to amend its infringement contentions in the Wave 1 cases. See Case No. 5:15-cv00364: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00365: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00366: Docket 

No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00367: Docket No. 1; see also Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 252. 

The exception was Motorola, who had settled. See Case No. 5:13-cv-01774: Docket No. 195.

And in Wave 4, Adaptix filed three more cases against Wave 2 Defendants AT&T, Verizon, 

Amazon, Dell and Sony. See Case No. 5:15-cv-00962: Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00971: 

Docket No. 1; Case No. 5:15-cv-00972: Docket No. 1. As noted earlier, Dell and Sony later 

settled. See Case No. 5:15-cv-00971: Docket No. 49; Case No. 5:15-cv-00972: Docket No. 69.

2

See Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket Nos. 405, 413.

3

See, e.g., Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 419.

4

See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 164.

5

See, e.g., Case No. 5:15-cv-00365: Docket No. 45.

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 12
5

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

Adaptix now asks the court to revisit this last set of decisions. In particular, it moves to 

alter the judgment in the Wave 3 and Wave 4 cases6and to clarify the order dismissing Adaptix’s 

Wave 2 cases against AT&T.7 As support, Adaptix primarily relies on the Federal Circuit’s recent 

decision in Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada), which elaborated on the 

standards for claim and issue preclusion in patent infringement cases.8 For its part, AT&T crossmoves for dismissal and entry of judgment in the same Wave 2 cases.9

 Meanwhile, Defendants in 

two other Wave 2 cases move for judgment on the pleadings based on claim preclusion and the 

Kessler doctrine.10 Because nothing in Dow Chemical changes the court’s prior conclusions, 

Adaptix’s motions are DENIED, and Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.

I.

In its dismissal order, the court relied on four related but distinct doctrines, all of which 

limit when and how a plaintiff can bring suits that raise related issues. Claim preclusion requires 

parties to bring all available claims in one action, preventing them from harassing defendants and 

courts with “repetitive actions based on the same claim.”11 “Issue preclusion, in contrast, bars 

‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court 

determination essential to the prior judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different 

claim.”

12 The Kessler doctrine, which dates back to a 1907 Supreme Court decision,13 “fills the 

 

6

See Case No. 5:15-cv-00364: Docket No. 46; Case No. 5:15-cv-00365: Docket No. 48; Case No. 

5:15-cv-00366: Docket No. 49; Case No. 5:15-cv-00367: Docket No. 49; Case No. 5:15-cv-00962: 

Docket No. 49; Case No. 5:15-cv-00971: Docket No. 53.

7

See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 170; Case No. 5:14-cv-01385: Docket No. 150.

8

See 803 F.3d 620, 626-31 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

9

See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 180; Case No. 5:14-cv-01385: Docket No. 165.

10 See Case No. 5:14-cv-02359: Docket No. 110; Case No. 5:14-cv-02360: Docket No. 126.

11 Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cnty., 69 F.3d 321, 328 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Adobe Sys. 

Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys., LLC, Case No. 14-cv-02778, 2014 WL 5454648, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 

27, 2014).

12 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 

748 (2001)).

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 5 of 12
6

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

gap between these preclusion doctrines, allowing an adjudged non-infringer to avoid repeated 

harassment for continuing its business as usual post-final judgment in a patent action where 

circumstances justify that result.”14 Finally, the doctrine against claim splitting represents the idea 

that a claimant may not “split up his demand, and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present only a 

portion of the grounds upon which special relief is sought, and leave the rest to be presented in a 

second suit, if the first fail.”15 In the Ninth Circuit, claim splitting mirrors claim preclusion, with 

the distinction that the former applies even if no judgment has yet been entered in the first suit.16

In all of these cases—the ones at issue here, as well as the many others—Adaptix alleges 

that a variety of cellphones practice its patented methods when they communicate using a 

particular LTE standard. In the Wave 1 cases, the court granted summary judgment of 

noninfringement against Adaptix. Citing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link 

Systems, Inc.,

17 this court held that the Wave 1 Defendants could not directly infringe Adaptix’s 

patents because no Defendant performed at least one step of any claimed method itself.

18

 The 

court then entered judgment against Adaptix in each of the Wave 1 cases.19

The Wave 1 Defendants then moved to dismiss the Wave 3 cases. The primary dispute 

between the parties was whether the Wave 1 and Wave 3 cases raised the same causes of action, as 

claim preclusion requires. In a line of cases starting with Foster v. Hallco Manufacturing Co.20

 

13 See Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907).

14 Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc., 746 F.3d 1045, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

15 The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 125 (1894).

16 See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on 

other grounds, Taylor, 553 U.S. at 904; see also Icon-IP PTY Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle 

Components, Case No. 13-cv-03677, 2013 WL 10448869, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013); Single 

Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1058-59 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

17 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

18 See Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 405 at 2-3.

19 See, e.g., Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 419.

20 947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 6 of 12
7

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

and leading up to Nystrom v. Trex Co.,

21 the Federal Circuit had held that claim preclusion barred a 

plaintiff from bringing successive suits accusing “essentially the same” products of infringing the 

same patents.22 Here, the court found, the accused products in the Wave 1 and Wave 3 cases were 

essentially the same with respect to Adaptix’s infringement contentions, so claim preclusion 

applied.

23

Adaptix argued that the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon 

Eyewear, Inc.24 and Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.25 had changed the standard for claim preclusion. 

There the Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion did not bar a plaintiff from seeking damages

for acts of infringement that occurred after a final judgment in a prior suit, even if the accused 

products were essentially the same.

26

 But to the extent these cases were inconsistent with Foster

and Nystrom, the court noted that the Federal Circuit could not overrule its precedent without 

sitting en banc.27 Moreover, and independently, the court dismissed the Wave 3 cases under the 

Kessler doctrine.28

In the same order, the court also dismissed the Wave 4 cases. As to AT&T and Verizon, 

the court applied the same claim preclusion and Kessler doctrine arguments.29 And as to Sony and 

 

21 580 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

22 Foster, 947 F.2d at 478-80; Nystrom, 580 F.3d at 1284-86.

23 See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 164 at 12-14.

24 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

25 746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

26 See Aspex Eyewear, 672 F.3d at 1342-44; Brain Life, 746 F.3d at 1053-54.

27 See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 164 at 14-15 (citing Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 

864 F.2d 757, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

28 See id. at 16-17.

29 See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 164 at 22 n.105. In addition, the court dismissed the 

claims against Verizon for direct infringement as barred by issue preclusion. See id. at 17-18.

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 7 of 12
8

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

Amazon, the court relied on the doctrine against claim splitting.

30

 The court cited a recent case 

from this district, Icon-IP PTY Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, in which the plaintiff had 

moved for leave to amend its infringement contentions in an earlier suit to add new products that 

allegedly infringed in essentially the same way.31 When the plaintiff was denied leave to add 

almost all of the newly accused products, it filed a new suit against only those products.32 The 

Icon-IP court found that the products met the “essentially the same” standard and that the claimsplitting doctrine therefore barred the new suit.33

 Noting the strong similarities with the situation in 

Icon-IP, this court applied the same doctrine.34

Finally, the order granted AT&T’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) 

in the Wave 2 cases. Because Rule 12(c) and Rule 12(b)(6) are governed by “‘functionally 

identical’ standards,” the court explained that it “consider[ed] AT&T’s Rule 12(c) motion together 

with the Wave 3 and Wave 4 Defendants’ under Rule 12(b)(6).”35 After that statement, the order 

did not mention AT&T’s arguments separately.

Just a week later, the Federal Circuit issued its Dow Chemical decision. The opinion by a 

unanimous panel cited Brain Life and Aspex Eyewear for the proposition “that, as to claims for 

continuing conduct after the complaint is filed, each period constitutes a separate claim” even for 

“patent infringement claims.”36 The Federal Circuit did not discuss Foster, Nystrom or any other 

cases in that line. Adaptix filed the first of the instant motions within weeks, with the remainder

following over the next few months.

 

30 See id. at 18-22.

31 Case No. 13-cv-03677, 2013 WL 10448869, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013).

32 See id.

33 See id. at *2-4.

34 See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 164 at 18-22.

35 Id. at 10 (quoting Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, NA, 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011)).

36 803 F.3d at 626-27.

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 8 of 12
9

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

II.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The parties further 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

III.

A court should alter or amend a judgment only in rare circumstances. “Although Rule 

59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an 

‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conversation of judicial 

resources.’”37 Such a motion “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless 

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 

an intervening change in the controlling law.”38 Against this stringent standard, Adaptix’s motions 

do not pass muster.

First, Adaptix moves to alter the judgment against it in the Wave 3 cases. Dow Chemical, 

Adaptix argues, constituted “an intervening change in the controlling law” that requires the court to 

alter its judgment under Rule 59(e).39 To the extent that the more recent holdings in Aspex 

Eyewear, Brain Life and now Dow Chemical cannot be squared with Foster and Nystrom—a 

perfectly reasonable line of argument40—the Federal Circuit’s rule of precedent in Newell still 

binds the court to follow the earlier cases.41 The court’s dismissal order noted as much.42

 

37 Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 Moore’s 

Federal Practice § 59.30[4]).

38 Id. (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

39 Id. Adaptix also cites Rule 52(b) in its motion, but, as Defendants note, Rule 52 only governs 

bench trials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); ATS Prods., Inc. v. Ghiorso, Case No. 10-cv-04880, 2012 

WL 1067547, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2012). Adaptix does not mention Rule 52 in its reply.

40 See, e.g., Christopher Petroni, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc. and Brain Life, 

LLC v. Elekta Inc.: Irreconcilable Conflict in the Law Governing Claim Preclusion in Patent 

Cases, 14 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 379 (2015).

41 See Newell Cos., 864 F.2d at 765.

42 See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 164 at 14-15.

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 9 of 12
10

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

Adaptix contends that the Newell rule should not apply for a variety of reasons. None of 

these reasons, however, carries any more weight now than it did before Dow Chemical, which did 

not even cite Nystrom. In briefing its opposition to the motions to dismiss, Adaptix could—and

did—raise largely the same arguments about Nystrom’s inapplicability in light of Aspex Eyewear

and Brain Life. Adaptix cannot use Rule 59(e) as a vehicle to re-litigate issues that the court 

already has resolved.

In any case, the judgment that Adaptix asks the court to overturn rested on a second 

independent ground: the Kessler doctrine.43 In fact, Adaptix acknowledges that the court’s 

revisiting its decision on claim preclusion would not change the ultimate result.44 Even if the court 

sided with Adaptix on claim preclusion, the judgment would remain intact. In this situation, there 

is no reason for the court to amend the judgment.45

Second, Adaptix also moves to alter the judgment in the Wave 4 cases. As above, Dow 

Chemical did not change the controlling law. Dow Chemical therefore does not require the court to 

alter its judgment under Rule 59(e).

Third, Adaptix asks the court to clarify whether and how it dismissed the Wave 2 cases 

against AT&T. AT&T cross-moves for entry of judgment against Adaptix under Rule 54(b). As 

indicated above, the court did address AT&T’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(c), granting it 

together with the Wave 3 and Wave 4 Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions.46 However, Adaptix 

now urges that the court’s claim preclusion and Kessler doctrine analysis are inapplicable to AT&T 

because the handsets at issue in the Wave 2 cases came from different manufacturers than those in 

the Wave 1 cases. Here, too, Adaptix rehashes arguments that the court already has heard and 

 

43 See id. at 16-17.

44 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00364: Docket No. 46 at 7.

45 See Beech v. FV Wishbone, Case No. 14-cv-00241, 2015 WL 4458839, at *2 (S.D. Ala. July 21, 

2015); Schoenman v. FBI, 857 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 2012).

46 See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 164 at 10.

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 10 of 12
11

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

rejected.

47

 Again, nothing in the law controlling these doctrines has changed since the court 

dismissed Adaptix’s claims, and there is no justification for the court to revisit its decision. The 

court will enter judgment in favor of AT&T in these cases.

Fourth, Defendants in the Wave 2 cases involving HTC devices move for judgment on the 

pleadings under Rule 12(c) as well. Under this Rule, “[a]fter the pleadings are closed[,] but early 

enough not to delay trial,” the court may dismiss a claim if, “taking all the allegations in the 

pleadings as true, [a] party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”48 On a Rule 12(c) motion, 

the court “may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, including documents on 

file in federal or state courts.”49 AT&T request, without objection, that the court take judicial 

notice of its own previous records in certain Wave 1 and Wave 3 cases.50 Because those 

documents are in the public record, the request is granted.

In light of the judgments the court entered in the Wave 1 and Wave 3 cases, claim 

preclusion and the Kessler doctrine both bar the Wave 2 cases as well. Adaptix’s only 

counterargument is that the court erred in applying those doctrines to the Wave 3 cases, because 

the sets of cases involve different periods of alleged infringement.51 To its credit, Adaptix 

acknowledges that, “[u]nless the [c]ourt soon changes its mind . . . , the [c]ourt will dismiss these 

cases as well.”

52

 Because the court’s mind has not changed, the Wave 2 Defendants’ motions are 

granted. The court will enter judgment in their favor.

 

47 See Case No. 5:14-cv-01379: Docket No. 152.

48 Lyon, 656 F.3d at 883 (alteration in original) (quoting Dunlap v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, L.P., 419 

F.3d 1011, 1012 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)).

49 Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001); Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th 

Cir. 2002)).

50 See Case No. 5:14-cv-02359: Docket No. 110 at 4.

51 See Case No. 5:14-cv-02359: Docket No. 115.

52 Id. at 1.

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 11 of 12
12

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG; -01385; -02359; -02360; 5:15-cv-00364-PSG; -00365; -00366; -

00367, -00962, -00971

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO ALTER JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of Californi

a

IV.

Adaptix’s motions to alter or amend the judgment in the Wave 3 and Wave 4 cases are 

DENIED. Its motions for clarification as to the Wave 2 cases also are DENIED, and AT&T’s 

motions for entry of judgment in those cases are GRANTED. Defendants’ motions for judgment 

on the pleadings in the Wave 2 HTC cases are GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00971-PSG Document 67 Filed 03/14/16 Page 12 of 12