Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-md-01654/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-md-01654-2/pdf.json

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

1 Thecasesare:SunMicrosystemsv.CompressionLabs,C 04-3124PJH(originally

filed in N.D. Cal.), Google v. Compression Labs, C 04-3934 PJH (originally filed in N.D. Cal);

Compression Labs v. Adobe, C 05-0923 PJH (originally filed in E.D. Tex.), CompressionLabs

v. Dell, C 05-0924 PJH (originally filed inE.D.Tex.); CompressionLabs v. Acer America, C 05-

0925 PJH (originally filed in E.D. Tex.). Audiovox v. Compression Labs, C 05-1225 PJH

(originally filed inD. Del);Yahoo v. CompressionLabs, C 05-1226 PJH(originally filed inD. Del);

Agfa v. Compression Labs, C 05-1228 PJH (originally filed in D. Del.). After the cases were

consolidated, another case was subsequently transferred to this court, Compression Labs v.

Creo, C 05-1603 PJH (originally filed in E.D. Tex.). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: COMPRESSION LABS, INC.,

PATENT LITIGATION No. M 05-1654 PJH

ORDER OF RECUSAL

___________________________________/

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) determined that centralization of

eight actions would promote the just and efficient conduct of this patent litigation and by order

dated Feb 16, 2005 transferred six actions to this district for consolidated pretrial

proceedings in conjunction with two actions already pending on this court’s docket.1 The

consolidated litigation is now entitled In re Compression Labs, Inc. Patent Litigation, M 05-

1654 PJH.

After all transfers had been administratively completed, an initial case management

conference was scheduled by order dated April 22, 2005. On April 28, 2005, plaintiff

Microsoft Corporation sought to have another action, Microsoft Corporation v. Compression

Labs, Inc., C 05-1567 BZ, reassigned to the undersigned judge on the grounds that it was

related to In re Compression Labs. By order filed May 6, 2005, the undersigned found that the

two cases were related within the meaning of Civ. L. R. 3-12(a), but nonetheless ordered

Microsoft Corporation v. Compression Labs, Inc. reassigned to another judge based on the

undersigned’s financial conflict and consequent disqualification in hearing matters in which

Microsoft is a party.

This issue was revisited at the case management conference held in the In re

Case 5:05-md-01654-JF Document 64 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Compression Labs, Inc. matter on May 19, 2005. No counsel was able to articulate a basis

for the court’s recusal in that action and the conference was concluded and a pretrial schedule

was entered. However, by order filed May 20, 2005, the parties were invited to file any

motions for recusal as soon as possible if they believed recusal was required.

No party to the In re Compression Labs, Inc. matter has filed a motion for recusal,

however, on June 23, 2005, Microsoft filed a motion to intervene and to recuse the

undersigned judge in Agfa v. Compression Labs, C 05-1228 PJH, one of the cases

comprising In re Compression Labs, Inc. The motion was noticed for hearing on August 3,

2005, but due to the undersigned’s unavailability, was subsequently re-noticed for August 17,

2005. Thus, any opposition is due July 27, 2005.

In its moving papers, Microsoft has adequately articulated its interest in the multidistrict

litigation based on both its potential indemnification obligations to its customers who are

already parties and on the infringement allegations made against Microsoft software

purchased and used by its customers in their own products. Based upon this stated interest,

the undersigned judge is DISQUALIFIED from continuing to preside over In re Compression

Labs, Inc. 

As recusal is mandatory under the circumstances, the court finds no reason to wait for

responses from the other parties. Although Microsoft has stated a non-frivolous basis for its

motion to intervene, this court declines to rule on the request in light of its disqualification. The

parties may seek a new briefing and hearing schedule from the judge to whom this matter will

be reassigned. Because Multidistrict Litigation matters are not assigned in the same manner

as other cases, this matter is referred to the Chief Judge for reassignment. 

The August 17, 2005 date for hearing is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2005

_____________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-md-01654-JF Document 64 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2