Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04794/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04794-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALTERA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO.KG,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04794-BLF 

(1) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;

(2) ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO RELATE CASES; 

(3) ORDER OF RECUSAL

[Re: ECF 24]

On February 13, 2015, the Court denied an unopposed motion to relate the abovecaptioned case with another case pending in this district, Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & 

Co. KG, 14-cv-04963-RS (“Xilinx”). The Court denied relation because the undersigned would be 

forced to recuse herself in the Xilinx case. On February 17, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for 

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of the motion to relate the cases. 

See ECF 24. 

A district court has the “inherent power to reconsider, set aside, or amend interlocutory 

orders at any time prior to entry of a final judgment.” Meas v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 681 

F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Consistent with this inherent power, the Court HEREBY 

GRANTS Defendant’s motion for reconsideration and ORDERS as follows.

A. Defendant’s Motion to Relate Cases

Defendant states that neither Altera nor Xilinx oppose the relief sought. See ECF 24-2 at 1.

Both actions at issue involve the same patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,759 and 6,704,891. See id.

at 2. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in both actions, and 

determination of both suits could require a court to construe both patents. Defendant argues that 

Case 5:14-cv-04794-LHK Document 25 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

failure to relate the cases would cause “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or 

conflicting results.” Id.

The Court agrees. Relation of these two cases is consistent with Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)

and Patent Local Rule 2-1, and the interests of judicial economy and efficiency support relating 

the cases. As such, the Court GRANTS the motion to relate the cases. 

B. Recusal

As the undersigned stated in her prior Order, ECF 23, she must recuse herself from Xilinx 

v. Papst Licensing. Therefore, following the relation of these cases, the undersigned hereby 

RECUSES herself. 

C. Order

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing, 14-cv-4794, is hereby deemed related to the abovecaptioned action, Altera Corp. v. Papst Licensing, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12. 

2. Due to the Court’s conflict in Xilinx, the Clerk is requested to randomly reassign 

the cases pursuant to the provisions of paragraph E.2 of the Assignment Plan and Civil Local Rule 

3-14. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04794-LHK Document 25 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 2