Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05850/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05850-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONGXIAO YUE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C07-05850 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendants Storage Technology Corporation (StorageTek), Sun

Microsystems, Inc., (“Sun”), Michael Melnick (“Melnick”), Julie DeCecco (“DeCecco”), Michael P.

Abramovitz (“Abramovitz”), Lisa K. Rady (“Rady”) and Jonathan Schwartz’s (“Schwartz”)

(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 35.) Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue (“Yue”)

opposes the Motion and filed a Motion Strike Portions of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which

Defendants opposed in their Reply brief. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Beginning in 1994, Plaintiff Yue developed technology he later named PowerRPC and ONC

RPC (collectively, “PowerRPC”). (See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 1.) Plaintiff Yue

formed Netbula, LLC (“Netbula”) in July 1996 to market PowerRPC. (See id.) PowerRPC software

contains: (1) a software development kit (“SDK”) that consists of software tools used by

Case 5:07-cv-05850-JW Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 7
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

1

 The Court takes judicial notice of matters in the public record, here documents filed with and by the Court, in the

other actions filed by Plaintiff and/or Netbula insofar as they aid the Court in resolution of this matter. See MGIC Indem.

Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 50, 504 (9th Cir. 1986) (taking judicial notice of other court documents filed in the public

record); Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992) (explaining that a court may take judicial notice of its own

records). 

Plaintiff, in his Motion to Strike, argues that the Court may not take judicial notice of documents filed in the

Netbula-Bindview matter. Plaintiff also agues that the Court should strike portions of Defendants’ Motion which reference

this case. The Court, however, does not rely on matters presented in Netbula-Bindview to resolve this Motion. The Court

simply recognizes the existence of this case. In any event, Plaintiff does not cite any authority for the proposition that the

Court cannot take judicial notice of matters in the public record, here a case on the Court’s docket. The Court therefore

denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

2

programmers to create applications that use RPC technology; and (2) supporting programs

(“Supporting Programs”) that consist of software programs and components that can be used by

applications developed with ONC RPC or PowerRPC. (Id. ¶ 17.) 

Plaintiff, on his own and through Netbula, has filed numerous actions to vindicate his rights. 

First, Netbula brought an action against Bindview Development Corporation (“Netbula-Bindview”),

an entity that is not a Defendant in this action.1

 (See Netbula, LLC v. Bindview Development Corp.,

No. 06-0711MJJ.) Then, on December 4, 2006 Netbula filed an action (“Netbula-Sun”) against Sun,

StorageTek, International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), EMC Corporation (“EMC”) and

Darden Restaurants (“Darden”). (See Netbula, LLC v. Storage Technology Corp., Case No. CV 06-

7391MJJ.) In Netbula-Sun, Netbula alleged that the defendants engaged in: (1) copyright

infringement, (2) intentional fraud, (3) breach of contract, (4) statutory unfair competition under

California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (5) equitable accounting and

imposition of a constructive trust. (See No. CV 6-7391MJJ, Complaint, Docket No. 15.) In

September 2007, while a Motion for Summary Judgment was pending in the Netbula-Sun case,

Netbula assigned to Plaintiff all exclusive copyrights in the versions of PowerRPC created before

January 1, 2007. (FAC ¶ 3.) Netbula’s counsel moved to withdraw from the action and substitute

Yue as a pro se plaintiff. The Court did not grant Plaintiff’s request to proceed pro se because, inter

alia, he could not, as a pro se litigant, represent the rights of the entity.

After a hearing, the Court granted the Netbula-Sun defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. The Court found that the defendants’ use of Netbula’s software was within the scope of

the license agreements entered into in 2000 and 2004 by Netbula and StorageTek, which therefore

Case 5:07-cv-05850-JW Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 7
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

precluded claims for copyright infringement. 

While the Motion for Summary Judgment in the Netbula-Sun case was pending, Plaintiff

filed this action against Sun and StorageTek (“Yue-Sun”). Plaintiff later amended his Complaint to

include the individual defendants. (See FAC.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ use, beyond the

scope of the 2000 and 2004 license agreements entered into by Netbula and StorageTek, amounts to

copyright infringement. (FAC ¶¶ 30, 44.) Defendants now move to dismiss the Yue-Sun case on the

ground that it is duplicative of the Netbula-Sun case.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[d]istrict courts retain broad discretion to control their

dockets and in the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate,

default or dismissal.” Adams v. State of California Department of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684,

688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). In the case of duplicative later-filed actions, “[a]fter

weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a

duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to

enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Id. To determine if a

later-filed action is duplicative, the court examines “whether the causes of action and relief sought,

as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Id. at 689. 

ANALYSIS

Defendants contend that this action, Yue-Sun, is duplicative of Netbula-Sun and seek an order

dismissing Yue-Sun with prejudice. The Court first determines if Yue-Sun is a duplicative action

under Adams, then turns to the proper resolution of the matter.

I. Yue-Sun Presents the Same Causes of Action as Netbula-Sun.

To determine if the same causes of action are presented by the two actions, the Court applies

the familiar transaction test, which was developed in the context of claim preclusion, and looks to

four factors:

(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or

impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same

evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve

infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same

transactional nucleus of facts. The last of these criteria is the most important.

Case 5:07-cv-05850-JW Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 7
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

 In Yue-Sun, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ use infringed two copyrights: (1) the “PowerRPC PWRPC32.DLL

00-SDK-STK” registered October 3, 2006 with U.S. registration number TX 6-437-847; and (2) the “NETBULA

POWERRPC 2K4” registered on December 15, 2006 with U.S. registration number TX 6-491-697. (FAC ¶ 2.) Plaintiff also

alleges that Defendants infringed Plaintiff’s other unpublished works with pending copyright registrations. (Id.) In NetbulaSun, the copyright at issue was Netbula’s main product, “PowerRPC” (Registration No. TX 6-211-063, registered October

18, 2005).

4

Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (quoting Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th

Cir. 1982) (quotations and citation omitted).

Here, it is clear that Yue-Sun presents the same claims already asserted in Netbula-Sun. 

Essentially, Plaintiff alleges in each action that StorageTek exceeded the scope of the license

agreements and engaged in copyright infringement. In both actions, the same licensing agreements,

one entered into in 2000 and the other entered into in 2004, are at stake. The additional facts

Plaintiff pleads in the Yue-Sun Complaint are a regurgitation of the evidence presented by Netbula in

opposition to the Netbula-Sun defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In fact, much of the YueSun Complaint is a verbatim restatement of Mr. Yue’s declaration presented to the Court in

opposition to the Netbula-Sun defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It is clear, therefore, that

the two actions arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts - Defendants’ license agreements

with Netbula and Defendants’ use of Netbula’s PowerRPC software. 

Next, in Netbula-Sun the Court granted summary judgment on the merits of the claims that

are now presented again in Yue-Sun, therefore the rights of the defendants in Netbula-Sun would be

destroyed or impaired by prosecution of Yue-Sun. In addition, presumably the same evidence would

be presented in Yue-Sun as was presented in Netbula-Sun, especially in light of the Complaint’s

heavy reliance on evidence already presented in the Netbula-Sun action. 

Finally, the two actions involve infringement of the same rights - Plaintiff’s rights to the

PowerRPC software that he alleges Defendants used in excess of their license agreements. While

Plaintiff argues that there are two copyrights at issue in Yue-Sun, both of which were not asserted in

Netbula-Sun, this distinction does not change the underlying rights at issue.2

 In both actions,

Plaintiff alleges the same use, in excess of the same licenses, of the same software. The claim that

Defendants’ infringing use of the PowerRPC software impacted additional copyrights is an attempt

to make out a separate claim for the same allegedly infringing use of the same software by

Case 5:07-cv-05850-JW Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 7
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

 This is especially true given that Netbula was the author and copyright claimant for both of the two copyrights

asserted in Yue-Sun and only assigned the copyrights to Yue in September 2007. Thus, Netbula could have asserted

violations of these copyrights in the Netbula-Sun action.

5

Defendants. However, Plaintiffs’ allegation that the same conduct violated his interest in different

copyrights, “does not mean that the underlying right is different in this suit.” Fantasy, Inc. v.

LaFace Records, Case No. CV 98-0856, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20931, *13 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12,

1998) (finding that breach-of-contract and fraud claims in a later-filed lawsuit vindicated the same

rights as were presented in a prior action for violation of federal copyright law); see also Feminist

Women’s Health Center v. Codispoti, 63 F.3d 863, 868 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a RICO claim

in a later-filed action vindicated the same rights as were presented in a prior action for alleged

deprivation of constitutional rights). Instead, if the facts underlying Netbula-Sun supported

copyright infringement of additional copyrights, Netbula should have asserted violations of those

copyrights in Netbula-Sun and not by filing a subsequent action.3

 See id. at 694 (holding that

dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where the plaintiff in successive actions attempts to

“litigat[e] piecemeal . . . issues that could have been resolved in one action”) (quoting Flynn v. State

Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 418 F.2d 668, 668 (9th Cir. 1969)). In addition, the most important

criteria in determining if the actions present the same causes of action is whether the two actions

arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. Here, they most certainly do. The Court

therefore finds that Yue-Sun and Netbula-Sun present the same causes of action. See id. at 691

(holding that even though the later-filed action involved a violation of a different and distinct right,

the fact that the actions arose from a common transactional nucleus of facts was the most important,

and most persuasive, factor).

II. Yue-Sun Involves the Same Parties or Privies as Netbula-Sun.

Privity among successive parties is the second element used to determine whether a

subsequent action is duplicative. The Ninth Circuit has

expanded the concept to include a broader array of relationships which fit under the

title of ‘virtual representation.’ The necessary elements of virtual representation are

an identity of interests and adequate representation. Additional features of a virtual

relationship include a close relationship, substantial participation, and tactical

maneuvering.

Adams, 487 F.3d at 691 (quotations and citations omitted).

Case 5:07-cv-05850-JW Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint names StorageTek and Sun, both of which were defendants in the

Netbula-Sun action. Plaintiff also, however, brings this action against five individuals who were not

named in the Netbula-Sun action. These five individuals are, as Plaintiff alleges, current or former

employees of StorageTek or Sun who contributed to the alleged copyright infringement. (See FAC ¶

11.) As employees of StorageTek or Sun, these Defendants were identified in the Netbula-Sun

action and four of the five provided declarations in support of summary judgment in the Netbula-Sun

case. (See Netbula-Sun, Docket Nos. 63, 116, 118, 120 (Melnick Decl., Abramovitz Decl., DeCecco

Decl., Rady Decl.).) Thus, the individual Defendants had a sufficient identity of interest and close

relationship with StorageTek or Sun such that they were virtually represented in the prior action. 

See id. (holding that three employees in a later-filed action were virtually represented by their

employer in the prior action).

In addition, the plaintiffs are different in these two actions. In Nebula-Sun, Netbula

represented the copyright claims, although Yue attempted to substitute in as the Plaintiff after

Netbula assigned him the copyrights in September 2007. In Yue-Sun, Yue himself is representing

the same claims previously brought by Netbula. In both cases, however, the rights of Netbula and

Yue are deeply intertwined. Yue is the founder and president of Netbula, LLC and thus may be seen

as virtually represented in the Netbula-Sun action. In addition, Netbula assigned all of its copyrights

prior to January 1, 2007 to Yue. Therefore, Yue is an assignee and is in privity with Netbula. See,

e.g., Headwaters Inc. v. United States Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2005)

(“Privity, traditionally, arose from a limited number of legal relationships in which two parties have .

. . transferred rights with respect to a particular legal interest, chiefly: [among others,] assignors and

assignees . . . .”). Yue and Netbula are, therefore, in privity. 

In sum, therefore, all of the parties in Yue-Sun were either parties in Netbula-Sun or were in

privity with parties to that action. The Court, after reviewing this case against the standards set forth

in Adams, finds that this case is duplicative of Netbula-Sun because it presents the same causes of

action between the same parties or their privies.

III. Dismissal Is Appropriate.

The trial court has an “ample” degree of discretion in determining whether to dismiss laterCase 5:07-cv-05850-JW Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

filed duplicative actions. Adams, 487 F.3d at 692 (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire

Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)). In addition, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that

“[d]ismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of

proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” Id.

(quoting Kerotest, 342 U.S. at 183). 

Weighing the equities, the Court finds that dismissing Yue-Sun, the duplicative action, is well

within its discretion and promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive disposition of litigation. 

Yue-Sun presents the same claims as Netbula-Sun and is effectively Plaintiff’s attempt to re-litigate

issues that have already been presented, and determined, by the Court. In addition, given the tactics 

that Plaintiff has pursued, which have ranged from duplicative to nearly vexatious, the Court finds

that dismissing the action with prejudice is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with

prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05850-JW Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 7 of 7