Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03843/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03843-4/pdf.json

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

ORDER RE NEWLY-ADDED MDL ACTIONS—MDL-1423

JAH

E-filed on 9/20/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC, PATENT

LITIGATION

______________________________________

THIS ORDER RELATES TO: 

 C-06-03843 RMW

 C-06-04295 RMW

No. MDL-1423

This Order Applies to

 C-06-03843 RMW

 C-06-04295 RMW

ORDER RE NEWLY-ADDED MDL

ACTIONS

On September 8, 2006, the court issued an order to show cause why defendants in two

actions transferred to this court by the MDL Panel should not be required to abide by this court's

June 21, 2006 scheduling order. The order to show cause also discussed a case for which transfer to

this court is pending and ordered plaintiff to "inform the court of any cases pending in other districts

that the MDL Panel is likely to transfer here." 

I. CYGNUS v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONICS

Cygnus initiated the action Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC v. American

International Telephonics, LLC, on January 26, 2006 in the Central District of California as case no.

06-cv-00508-DT-SS. By ordered dated May 18, 2006, the MDL Panel ordered the case transferred

here. The clerk of this court received the file from the Central District on June 20, 2006; the action

is now pending here as case no. C-06-03843.

Case 5:06-cv-03843-RMW Document 12 Filed 09/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 ITEG and TremCom state that "Neither Defendants nor their counsel has been served with or

otherwise seen the June 21, 2006 Scheduling Order." That order is available on the court's

electronic filing system on the master docket for this MDL action. It seems odd that ITEG and

TremCom would not have seen or obtained a copy of the order by September 13, 2006. Defendants

do not state whether or not they received the court's July 14, 2006 order.

ORDER RE NEWLY-ADDED MDL ACTIONS—MDL-1423

JAH 2

Only defendants International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc. ("ITEG") and TremCom

International, Inc. have had counsel enter an appearance in the case; they are represented by the

same attorney. On June 21, 2006, the court issued a scheduling order setting dates leading up to a

claim construction hearing on November 20, 2006. The scheduling order did not refer to case no. C06-03843 and the court did not mail a copy of that order to defense counsel in that action. The

court's next order, however, was a miscellaneous order dated July 14, 2006, and was mailed to

defense counsel in that action. In that order, the parties were instructed to discuss the feasibility of

ITEG and TremCom following the June 21, 2006 scheduling order. The defendants' liaison counsel

reported back that counsel for ITEG and TremCom was unwilling to participate because she thought

(erroneously) that the case had not yet been transferred here. 

A hearing was held before the court on August 18, 2006 to work out details of the schedule

leading up to the November 20 claim construction hearing. The court issued an order setting dates

on August 21, 2006. Counsel for ITEG and TremCom states that she received this order on

September 4, 2006.

ITEG and TremCom responded to the September 8, 2006 order to show cause. They argue

that they cannot in the short time remaining prepare for a claim construction hearing on November

20. They also state that ITEG did not use any technology covered by Cygnus's patents and that

TremCom formerly made limited use of call-back technology but no longer do so, and that they have

made a settlement offer to Cygnus.1

Had ITEG and TremCom begun participating in this action upon receipt of the July 14, 2006

order, the court would have been more receptive to their arguments that there is insufficient time for

them to prepare for the November 20, 2006 hearing. ITEG and TremCom could have appeared at

the August 18, 2006 hearing and been able to present their positions on the current schedule. 

However, given the nature of the case, the materials available to ITEG and TremCom and the

number of other defendants with similar interests, the court finds that ITEG and TremCom can and

Case 5:06-cv-03843-RMW Document 12 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 Were the court not to require ITEG and TremCom to participate in the November 20, 2006 claim

construction hearing, the court anticipates that after it issued a claim construction order, either ITEG

and TremCom or Cygnus would argue that that order should be given preclusive effect against the

other side.

ORDER RE NEWLY-ADDED MDL ACTIONS—MDL-1423

JAH 3

shall adhere to the schedule set by the court leading up to the November 20, 2006 claim construction

hearing. 

The court is aware that under that schedule, the parties must submit a joint claim

construction statement to the court on September 22, 2006. The court will give ITEG and TremCom

until October 18, 2006 to file a separate claims construction statement on any claim term that they

submit should be defined differently than proposed by any defendant.2 ITEG and TremCom should

be aware that Kieran Fallon has been appointed liaison counsel for the defendants in this MDL

proceeding, and said counsel will act as liaison counsel for ITEG and TremCom absent a showing of

good cause why he should not so act.

II. CYGNUS v. WORTHINGTON

Plaintiff initiated Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC v. Worthington in the

District of Arizona on February 17, 2006 as case no. 06-cv-00515-FJM. The case was ordered

transferred here by the MDL Panel and was received on July 13, 2006 and assigned case no.

C-06-04295. No defendant has yet been served.

In response to this court's September 8, 2006 order to show cause, Cygnus reports that it has

attempted to serve the defendants in that action but that they "have evaded service of process." 

Cygnus also states that it has hired a private investigator in an attempt to track the defendants down. 

Cygnus requests until December 15, 2006 to attempt to serve the defendants.

Rule 4(m) requires service to be made "within 120 days after the filing of the complaint." 

Cygnus has failed to effect service upon any of six defendants for approximately 210 days since it

filed its complaint in this action. Rule 4(m) also provides that "if the plaintiff shows good cause for

the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period." The court will give

Cygnus the additional ninety days its requests, but the court expects Cygnus to have commenced

service by publication by the end of the extension period if personal service has not been effected. If

any defendant in this action remains unserved on December 15, 2006, Cygnus shall show cause by

Case 5:06-cv-03843-RMW Document 12 Filed 09/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER RE NEWLY-ADDED MDL ACTIONS—MDL-1423

JAH 4

declaration filed by December 20, 2006 why that defendant has not been served, and why a further

extension would be "an appropriate period" under Rule 4(m).

III. CYGNUS v. MAJOSA

The action Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC v. Majosa Communications Corp.,

pending in the Central District of California as case no. 05-cv-04272-R-CT, was ordered transferred

here by the MDL Panel on August 25, 2005. It is unclear why the file has not been physically

transferred. In any event, the clerk of this court requested transfer of the file from the Central

District of California on August 14, 2006, but has not yet received it. Cygnus reports that both

defendants in that action have been served. Upon receipt by the clerk of this court of the case file

from the Central District of California, Cygnus shall serve this order, the June 21, 2006 scheduling

order, and the August 21, 2006 order setting dates upon both defendants in this action, and within

thirty days of such service, the parties shall submit to the court a joint scheduling proposal

addressing the best way to integrate this action into MDL proceedings here.

IV. OTHER ACTIONS

In the September 8, 2006 order to show cause, plaintiff was instructed to "inform the court of

any cases pending in other districts that the MDL Panel is likely to transfer here." Plaintiff did not

identify any such cases. To assist the court with scheduling, if Cygnus initiates any new actions for

infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,883,964 or 6,035,027 in any court, Cygnus shall inform this court

within five business days.

DATED: 9/20/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03843-RMW Document 12 Filed 09/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER RE NEWLY-ADDED MDL ACTIONS—MDL-1423

JAH 5

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

John P. Sutton

2421 Pierce Street

San Francisco, CA 94115-1131 

Gregory J. Nelson 

Nelson & Roediger 

3333 E Camelback Road 

Suite 212 

Phoenix, AZ 85018 

Peter Neil Greenfeld 

Greenfeld Law Group 

3333 E Camelback Road 

Suite 212 

Phoenix, AZ 85018-2324 

Counsel for Defendants:

Kieran Patrick Fallon 

436 SW 8th Street 

Miami, FL 33130-2814 

Meredith L. Caliman 

Meredith L. Caliman Law Offices 

3858 Carson Street, Suite 120 

Torrance, CA 90503-6705 

Courtesy Copy:

Clerk of the Panel

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Room G-255, North Lobby

Washington, DC 20002-8004

Counsel shall distribute copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:06-cv-03843-RMW Document 12 Filed 09/20/06 Page 5 of 5