Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08451/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08451-0/pdf.json

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

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KARAMELION LLC, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

NORTEK SECURITY & CONTROL, LLC, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 4:19-cv-06016-YGR 

ORDER DENYING SUA SPONTE REFERRAL 

TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD 

BE RELATED

Re: Dkt. No. 20 

Currently pending before the Court is a sua sponte referral from Judge Jeffrey S. White to 

consider whether, pursuant to Northern District Patent Local Rule 2-1(a), Karamelion LLC v. 

Sercomm USA, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-08451-JSW (“Karamelion II”) should be related to closed case 

Karamelion LLC v. Nortek Security & Control, LLC, No. 4:19-cv-06016-YGR (“Karamelion I”). 

(Dkt. No. 20.) Rule 2-1(a), regarding a Notice of Pendency of Other Action Involving Same 

Patent, provides that “[w]hen actions concerning the same patent are filed within two years of each 

other by the same plaintiff, they will be deemed related.” Here, Karamelion I was dismissed with 

prejudice on January 2, 2020, and is therefore no longer pending before the Court at the time of 

the referral. Thus, the Court DENIES relating under Rule 2-1(a) Karamelion II with Karamelion I. 

Under N.D. Patent L.R. 2-1(a)(5), “[e]ven if a case is not deemed related to a pending case 

pursuant to this rule, a party may still seek a related case determination pursuant to Civil L.R. 

3-12.” Civil L.R. Rule 3-12 provides an “action is related to another when: (1) The actions 

concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that 

there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the 

cases are conducted before different Judges.” 

Case 4:19-cv-08451-JSW Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 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 Californi

a

Although there is overlap between the cases, namely the same patent, the Court finds that 

is unlikely that there will be “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting 

results” if Karamelion II proceeds before a different judge. First, Karamelion I is closed so there 

is no need to coordinate any proceedings. Second, this Court did consider or rule on any 

substantive motions in Karamelion I, and thus, there would be no judicial efficiency gained by 

relating the cases. 

Accordingly, the sua sponte referral is hereby DENIED. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 20. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 14, 2020 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-08451-JSW Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2