Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00541/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00541-17/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZEST IP HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv541-GPC(WVG)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING IMPLANT DIRECT

SYBRON INTERNATIONAL AND

IMPLANT DIRECT SYBRON

MANUFACTURING, LLC’S

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF

ORDERS FOR INTERLOCUTORY

APPEAL;

[Dkt. No. 566.]

(2) VACATING HEARING DATE

v.

IMPLANT DIRECT MFG., LLC, et

al.,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is a motion for certification of orders for

interlocutory appeal by Defendants Implant Direct Sybron International and Implant

Direct Sybron Manufacturing, LLC (collectively, “IDSI”). (Dkt. No. 566.) The

Parties have fully briefed the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 569-70.) The Court finds the

motion suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7.1(d)(1). Upon review of the moving papers and subsequent briefing, and the

applicable law, the Court DENIES IDSI’s motion for certification. 

BACKGROUND

As set forth in prior orders in this case, this is a patent and trademark

infringement action involving dental attachment products. (See Dkt. No. 1.) The

- 1 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 9
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

procedural history in this four-and-a-half year old litigation is long and complex. 

I. Case Initiation

On March 12, 2010, Plaintiffs Zest Anchors, LLC and Zest Holdings, LLC

(collectively, “Zest”) filed the initial Complaint in the present action, naming

Defendants Implant Direct International, Implant Direct LLC, and Implant Direct

MFG, LLC (collectively, “Implant Direct”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On August 27, 2010,

Zest filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), the current operative Complaint. 

(Dkt. No. 13.) The gravamen of the FAC is that Implant Direct manufactures, offers

for sale, and sells the “GoDirect” dental attachment product and the GoDirect

Prosthetic System (“GPS”) (collectively, “Accused Products”) in violation of Zest’s

patents, and falsely and unfairly uses the ZEST®

 and LOCATOR®

 trademarks when

marketing the Accused Products. (See Dkt. No. 13 ¶¶ 6, 7, 20, 21, 24-28, 30-32.)

The FAC alleges eight causes of action against the Implant Direct Defendants:

(1) Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,030,219; (2) Infringement of Patent No.

6,299,447; (3) Trademark Infringement; (4) False Designation of Origin; (5) False

Advertising; (6) California UCL; (7) California statutory False Advertising; and

(8) Common Law Unfair Competition. (Id.) On September 17, 2010, Implant

Direct filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 17.) 

II. Creation of IDSI Entities

Under the terms of a transaction agreement dated November 17, 2010

(“Transaction Agreement”), Implant Direct entered into a corporate transaction

(“2010 Transaction”) with Sybron Canada Holdings, Inc. for an “arms-length” sale

whereby the Implant Direct entities formed and transferred 100% of their interests

into wholly-owned subsidiaries, which were then purchased by Sybron Canada

Holdings, Inc. (“Sybron”). (See Dkt. No. 521, Velez Decl. Ex. 1.) In particular,

Implant Direct Mfg. LLC became Implant Direct Sybron Manufacturing, LLC and

Implant Direct International became Implant Direct Sybron International LLC. (See

Dkt. No. 146 at 4; Dkt. No. 521-2, Velez Decl. Ex. 3, Chang Depo. at 69:20-70:4.) 

- 2 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 9
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

Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, the IDSI entities assumed “the

following liabilities of Sellers solely to the extent relating to the ID Business: . . .

(iii) . . . all Liabilities arising out of the ownership, use or operation by the Joint

Venture Companies of the ID Contributed Assets following the Closing, and

(iv) numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 on the litigation summary attached to Section 2.16 of

the Sellers’ Disclosure Schedule . . .” (Dkt. No. 521, Velez Decl. Ex. 1 at

§ 9.1(qq).) The referenced “litigation summary” lists nine items under the heading

“A summary of all pending or threatened litigation or action against the Company.”

(Dkt. No. 521-1, Velez Decl. Ex. 2, Litigation Summary.) The litigation summary

discloses the present litigation as item two, stating that:

Zest Anchors filed a Complaint alleging that Implant Direct’s GoDirect

one-piece implant infringes its patent. GoDirect implants account for

about 0.2% of Implant Direct’s implantsales, and Implant Direct has filed

for a Patent on this product. . . Implant Direct anticipates litigation with

Zest when Implant Direct launches its new GPS abutment system, for

which Implant Direct has also filed a patent application. Implant Direct

believes that it does not infringe the Zest patent, and also that it is

protected from claims of inducing infringement because the Zest cap

attachment works with the Implant Direct GPS Abutment. Zest served

the Complaint on July 7, 2010 and filed an Amended Complaint on

August 27, 2010. 

(Id. at 3) (emphases in original). 

III. Joinder of the IDSI Entities

Following a series of discovery disputes between the Parties, Zest filed a

motion to formally join the IDSI entities to the present action as

successors-in-interest to the Implant Direct entities pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 25(c). (Dkt. No. 116.) The motion was filed on August 21, 2012,

and was fully briefed, including supplemental briefing. (Dkt. Nos. 146, 156, 170,

177.) On October 22, 2012, the case was transferred from Judge Larry Burns to the

undersigned Judge. (Dkt. No. 142.) Following a hearing on January 4, 2013, (Dkt.

No. 184, Hearing Transcr.), this Court denied Zest’s motion to join the IDSI entities

on the ground that Zest had not properly served IDSI with the motion. (Dkt. No.

185.) The Court further granted Zest fifteen days to properly effectuate service and

- 3 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 3 of 9
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

took the motion under submission. (Dkt. No. 185.) On February 19, 2013, the IDSI

entities filed an opposition to Zest’s motion to join. (Dkt. No. 190.) On February

21, 2013, Zest filed a reply to the IDSI opposition. (Dkt. No. 191.) On April 15,

2013, this Court issued an order granting Zest’s motion to join the IDSI entities as

successors-in-interest to Implant Direct. (Dkt. No. 202.) In particular, this Court

found that the benefits of joinder outweighed Zest’s delay in seeking joinder and

that IDSI was not unduly prejudiced because “IDSI has had an opportunity as an

interested party to influence the direction that Implant Direct has sought in the

litigation up to this point.” (Id. at 4-6.) 

On May 6, 2013, without seeking leave to do so, the IDSI entities filed an

Answer to Zest’s Amended Complaint, asserting a counterclaim against Zest for

patent invalidity. (Dkt. No. 211.) On May 31, 2013, Zest filed a motion to strike

IDSI’s Answer and Counterclaim arguing that IDSI was attempting to file the very

same Answer and Counterclaim that Implant Direct was previously disallowed by

Judge Larry Burns to file, (see Dkt. No. 81), and that IDSI, as a successor-in-interest

to Implant Direct, was not entitled to start the case anew under Rule 25(c). (Dkt.

Nos. 226, 226-1.) IDSI opposed the motion, (Dkt. No. 253), and Plaintiffs replied,

(Dkt. No. 261). On October 16, 2013, this Court granted Zest’s motion to strike

IDSI’s answer and counterclaim. (Dkt No. 301 at 4-10.) 

IV. November 4, 2014 Order

More than six months later, on April 28, 2014, new counsel filed a notice of

appearance and applied to appear pro hac vice for the IDSI entities. (Dkt. Nos. 419,

421, 422.) On April 29, 2014, IDSI filed a “Motion for Clarification of Joinder and

Discovery Orders,” moving this Court to clarify that the Court’s order joining IDSI

to the present action as successor-in-interest to IDSI is limited to Implant Direct’s

conduct prior to the 2010 Transaction. (Dkt. No. 420.) On July 30, 2014, the Court

declined to decide the scope of IDSI liability on a “motion for clarification” without

the proper legal and evidentiary showings. (Dkt. No. 455 at 5-6.)

- 4 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 9
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

The Parties then filed three cross-motions for summary judgment on the

question of whether IDSI’s joinder to this litigation under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 25(c) is solely for Implant Direct’s pre-2010 Transaction conduct or

whether IDSI’s potential liability is severed as of the date of the 2010 Transaction. 

(Dkt. Nos. 456, 467-68.) In essence, the Parties sought to determine the scope of

the Implant Direct and IDSI Defendants’ potential liability for the present litigation

due to the transfer of interest between them in the 2010 Transaction. The Parties

fully briefed all three motions. (Dkt. Nos. 489-91, 498-500.) A hearing was held on

October 3, 2014. (Dkt. No. 532.).

On November 4, 2014, the Court: (1) denied IDSI’s motion for summary

judgment; (2) granted in part and denied in part Zest’s motion for summary

judgment; and (3) granted in part and denied in part Implant Direct’s motion for

partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 558.) The Court concluded that the IDSI

entities are liable for their own post-2010 Transaction conduct and are bound to the

Court’s prior orders and Implant Direct’s litigation decisions. The Court rejected

IDSI’s arguments that Rule 25(c) limited their liability to the conduct of their

predecessors, the Implant Direct entities, and that it violated due process to hold

IDSI liable for their own conduct without allowing ISDI to answer, raise defenses,

engage in discovery, or present independent witnesses.

V. November 19, 2014 Order

On November 10, 2014, IDSI filed a motion for leave to file an answer. (Dkt.

No. 559.) On November 19, 2014, the Court held a teleconference, with all parties

appearing telephonically by counsel, to address the timing and propriety of IDSI’s

motion. (Dkt. No. 564.) The same day, the Court issued an order construing IDSI’s

motion to file an answer as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 4,

2014 Order, and denying that motion for lack of legal cause to reconsider. (Dkt.

No. 565.)

///

- 5 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 5 of 9
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

VI. Present Motion

On December 1, 2014, IDSI filed the present motion for certification for

interlocutory appeal of the Court’s November 4 and 19, 2014 Orders (“Court’s

Orders”). (Dkt. No. 566.) IDSI contends that the Court’s Orders raise two

controlling questions of law: 

“1. When a transferee successor-in-interest is joined to a pending

lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c), is the successor’s liability

limited to its predecessor’s conduct, or may the district court permit the

successor to be sued for damages for its own independent post-transfer

conduct, when the plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint that

sets forth claims against the successor?

2. If a joined successor-in-interest may be sued for damages for its

own post-transfer conduct, do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

due process permit the district court to bar it from filing an answer and

asserting defenses, even where plaintiff asserts new claims against the

successor that were not set forth in the pre-transfer complaint against

the predecessor and were not addressed by an answer the predecessor

filed before the successor existed?”

(Id. at 2; Dkt. No. 566-1 at 8.) If the Court grants the motion, IDSI further moves to

stay proceedings pending leave to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals to

the Federal Circuit. (Dkt. No. 566 at 2; Dkt. No. 566-1 at 9.) 

On December 15, 2014, Zest opposed the motion. (Dtk. No. 569.) On

December 19, 2014, IDSI replied. (Dkt. No. 570.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

District courts may certify an issue for interlocutory appeal upon satisfaction

of certain criteria. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Those criteria are: (1) the order involves a

controlling question of law; (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion;

and (3) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate

- 6 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 6 of 9
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

termination of the litigation. Id.; In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026

(9th Cir. 1982). Courts apply section 1292(b)’s requirements strictly, and grant

motions for certification only when exceptional circumstances warrant immediate

appeal. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978); see also Fujitsu

Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., 539 Fed. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (per curiam)

(“Both the legislative history of Section 1292(b) and the case law emphasize that

appellate courts should only grant interlocutory appeals under rare circumstances.”). 

The party seeking certification to appeal an interlocutory order has the burden of

establishing the existence of such exceptional circumstances. Coopers & Lybrand,

437 U.S. at 475. “Even then, a court has substantial discretion in deciding whether

to grant a party’s motion for certification.” Zulewski v. Hershey Co., No. CV 11-

5117 KAW, 2013 WL 1334159, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013).

DISCUSSION

Having considered the foregoing criteria, the Court finds that no exceptional

circumstances warrant interlocutory review. The Court concludes that, even

assuming the Court’s Orders involve a “controlling question of law,” they do not

involve a question as to which there is “a substantial ground for difference of

opinion.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

“To determine if a ‘substantial ground for difference of opinion’ exists under

§ 1292(b), courts must examine to what extent the controlling law is unclear.”

Couch v. Telescope, Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). “Courts traditionally

will find that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where ‘the circuits

are in dispute on the question and the court of appeals of the circuit has not spoken

on the point, if complicated questions arise under foreign law, or if novel and

difficult questions of first impression are presented.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

“However, ‘just because a court is the first to rule on a particular question or just

because counsel contends that one precedent rather than another is controlling does

not mean there is such a substantial difference of opinion as will support an

- 7 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 7 of 9
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

interlocutory appeal.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, IDSI’s argument to show a “substantial ground for difference of

opinion” focuses on the same cases which the Court previously considered and

rejected. The Court found these cases distinguishable, and noted that “IDSI has

pointed to no cases in which a court severed liability at the time of transfer for a

successor-in-interest to a case under Rule 25(c).” (Dkt. No. 558 at 14.) On the

other hand, the Court noted that “Zest’s cited authorities demonstrate that several

courts have brought successors-in-interest into a case and have allowed posttransfer conduct to be included in the calculation of damages.” (Id. at 15.) IDSI

contends that the Court’s Orders violate the Supreme Court’s holding regarding due

process rights in Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460 (2000). (Dkt. No. 566-1

at 6.) However, the Court found that “the due process concerns raised by Nelson are

not applicable to this case.” (Dkt. No. 558 at 16.) ISDI’s strong disagreement with

the Court regarding these questions is insufficient to establish a substantial ground

for difference of opinion. See Couch, 611 F.3d at 633. 

Moreover, IDSI has not shown that it is likely that an appeal will “materially

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). An

interlocutory appeal should be certified only when doing so “would avoid protracted

and expensive litigation.” In re Cement, 673 F.2d at 1026. If, by contrast, an

interlocutory appeal would delay resolution of the litigation, it should not be

certified. See Shurance v. Planning Control Int’l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th

Cir. 1988). Here, resolution of the issues on which IDSI’s seeks appeal would not

terminate the case because the pre-transfer claims would remain. See, e.g., S.E.C. v.

Sells, No. C 11-4941 CW, 2012 WL 4897385, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2012). In

addition, an interlocutory appeal would only further delay a case that has been

pending for over four-and-a-half years.

As Defendants have not met the second and third criteria required by

§ 1292(b), the Court finds that there are no exceptional circumstances warranting

- 8 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 8 of 9
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

interlocutory review. Accordingly, the Court DENIES IDSI’s motion for

certification of orders for interlocutory appeal. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

1. DENIES Implant Direct Sybron International and Implant Direct

Sybron Manufacturing LLC’s Motion for Certification of Orders for

Interlocutory Appeal, (Dkt. No. 566);

2. the Court hereby VACATES the hearing date set for this matter on

January 9, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 7, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 9 - [10cv541-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 572 Filed 01/08/15 Page 9 of 9