Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02366/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02366-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAN-WOONG PARK,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02366-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

RELATED CASES

[Re: ECF 61]

Before the Court is Defendant Chan-Woong Park’s (“Defendant” or “Park”) Motion to 

Consolidate the instant action with an already-related case between the same parties. Motion, ECF 

61. Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “PI”) opposes Park’s Motion. Opp’n, ECF 

63. The Court previously found Park’s Motion suitable for submission without oral argument and 

vacated the associated hearing. See ECF 70. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby 

GRANTS Park’s Motion to Consolidate. 

I. BACKGROUND

PI alleges that Park violated an employee agreement by disclosing or using PI’s proprietary 

information without consent, among other causes of actions. See generally Compl., ECF 1. PI is 

a Delaware corporation that supplies electronic components used in high voltage power 

conversion systems. Id. ¶ 5. Its headquarters and principal place of business are in San Jose, 

California. Id. ¶ 1. Park started to work for PI in 1997. Walker Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 18-1. On 

November 9, 2000, Park signed an agreement to work at PI’s headquarters in San Jose, California, 

as a Senior Applications Engineer. Id. ¶ 5. On March 29, 2001, Park signed an Employee 

Agreement Regarding Confidentiality and Inventions (“Inventions Agreement,” or “IA”) in San 

Jose, California, requiring Park to maintain and not use any information related to conception, 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 71 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 5
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 California

design, development or support of PI’s products (“Proprietary Information”). Id. ¶ 6; Compl. ¶ 7; 

Ex. A to Walker Decl. (“IA”), ECF 18-2. The IA also required Park to assign to PI the “entire 

right, title, and interest” to inventions jointly or solely conceived. Compl. ¶ 9; IA ¶ 3. The IA 

further states that the agreement “will be construed in accordance with and governed by, the laws 

of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place wholly within California between 

California residents.” IA ¶ 13. Park moved to South Korea in 2003 but continued to work for PI

as an engineer. Walker Decl. ¶ 7. His employment with PI ended in 2008. Compl. ¶ 11. 

PI alleges that it has learned that Park is using its Proprietary Information to file and obtain 

patents in the United States and in South Korea and that Park is interfering with its business 

relationships. Compl. ¶¶ 12–13. PI thus brings this suit alleging that Park has breached the 

Inventions Agreement, that Park has wrongfully converted its property and that PI is the rightful 

owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,123,121. Id. ¶¶ 18–27. PI also seeks a declaratory judgment 

determining that the information Park used in the Korean Patent filings, including Korean Patents 

Nos. 1436958 and 1588481, is PI’s Proprietary Information. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. PI further seeks a 

judicial declaration that Korean Patents Nos. 1436958 and 1588481 are owned by PI. Id. ¶ 31. 

The Court previously related the instant action with Power Integrations, Inc. v. ChangWoong Park, Case No. 16-cv-02367-BLF (“Park II”), under Civil Local Rule 3-12, which 

provides that “[a]n action is related to another when: (1) [t]he actions concern substantially the 

same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) [i]t 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.” See Order Relating Cases, ECF 33. Park II concerns the same parties 

and is based on the same underlying facts and dispute. See generally Park II Compl., ECF 1 in 

Case No. 16-cv-02367. In Park II, PI alleges that Park’s unlawful use of “Power Integrations’ 

Propriety Information” violates California Business and Professions Code § 17200 and constitutes 

trade libel and intentional and negligent interference with PI’s contractual relations and 

prospective economic relations. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18–51. 

Park now moves to consolidate the instant action with Park II. Motion, ECF 61. 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 71 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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 California

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . 

consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad discretion under this 

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 

for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to 

consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 

for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 28, 2016) (quoting Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 

2010). 

III. DISCUSSION

Park argues that the instant action and Park II should be consolidated for all purposes 

pursuant to Rule 42(a) because these two related cases “involv[e] the same parties and same core 

factual allegations [and] currently share the same trial date.” Motion at 1, 3, ECF 61. PI contends 

that “the cases involve separate subject matter, entirely different legal theories and law, different 

witnesses, [and] different time frames.” Opp’n at 1, ECF 63. PI admits the two cases involve 

exactly the same parties but argues that the issues concerning Park’s alleged interference with PI 

customer relationships in Park II “are independent of whether [Park] asserts that the technology 

was his alone to patent, which is at issue [in the instant action].” Id. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court agrees with Park and hereby GRANTS Park’s Motion to Consolidate. 

The Court finds that these two cases involve several common questions of law and fact. In 

both cases, the parties are identical. Plaintiff PI asserts several causes of action against Defendant 

Park. While the instant action (Case No. 16-cv-02366) focuses on breach of contract and 

conversion; and Park II (Case No. 16-cv-02367) focuses on tortious interference with contractual 

relations and prospective economic relations, among other claims, both cases are based on conduct 

that arose out of a prior employer-employee relationship between the parties. For example, 

allegations that Park breached the employee agreement by disclosing or using PI’s proprietary 

information support the causes of action in both cases. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 7–9, 13, ECF 1; 

Compl. ¶¶ 7–8, ECF 1 in Case No. 16-cv-02367. As another example, PI alleges in the instant 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 71 Filed 01/07/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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 California

action that Park wrongfully obtained patents based on PI’s proprietary information, see Compl. 

¶¶ 12–16, ECF 1; in Park II, PI alleges that Park used those patents to interfere with PI’s customer 

relationships, see Compl. ¶¶ 9–22, ECF 1 in Case No. 16-cv-02367. Thus, in both cases PI must 

prove that Park’s technology was not his alone. The Court need find only one issue of law or fact

in common to permit consolidation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); see also Dusky v. Bellasaire 

Investments, 2007 WL 4403985, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2007). Here, there are several. 

The Court also finds that consolidation would minimize the risk of delay and the burden on 

parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources. Given the substantial overlap in parties and 

underlying facts, the Court finds that the risks of confusion and prejudice are minimal. PI argues 

that “the parties are well into discovery in both cases” and “[c]onsolidation will not reduce the 

amount of total discovery in this case.” Opp’n at 7. PI’s argument is misplaced. Even if the total 

volume of independent discovery does not change, consolidation significantly reduces the 

likelihood of duplicative discovery and eliminates the burden on witnesses to appear in two 

separate cases, the parties to put on duplicative evidence in two separate cases, and for the Court 

to consider duplicative disputes in two separate cases. Moreover, the risk of delay is minimal 

because the instant action (Case No. 16-cv-02366) and Park II (Case No. 16-cv-02367) already 

share the same trial dates and the same deadline for the Court to hear dispositive motions. 

In addition, PI contends that consolidation will invite “undue prejudice” because the “large 

body of evidence that would encompass [the two cases] will confuse even the savviest of juries.” 

See Opp’n at 8. PI also argues that “[e]ven if the Court consolidates [the two cases] for purposes 

of discovery, the cases should be tried separately[] [u]nder Rule 42(b)” because the issues “will 

inevitably confuse a jury.” Id. The Court disagrees on both points. It is common for juries in this 

district to hear complex patent cases involving numerous claims and multiple patents; 

consolidation here will result in a single case no more complex. Indeed, patent cases 

themselves—each complex—are at times consolidated into one action. See, e.g., Paxonet 

Communications, Inc. v. Transwitch Corp., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (granting 

consolidation of two cases involving some common patents). 

In sum, the Court finds that consolidation is warranted here. 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 71 Filed 01/07/19 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Park’s Motion to Consolidate at ECF 61 is 

GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court CONSOLIDATES Case No. 16-cv-02366 and Case No. 

16-cv-02367 for all purposes, including trial and dispositive motions. For administrative 

purposes, the docket in Case No. 16-cv-02367, the later-filed case, shall be closed. However, 

Plaintiff need not file an amended complaint; the Court shall construe the Complaint in each case 

together as the governing Complaint in the consolidated action. In accordance with the Court’s 

Standing Order, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff and Defendant may each file only one motion 

for summary judgment in this consolidated action and motions in limine will be limited to five per 

side. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 71 Filed 01/07/19 Page 5 of 5