Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02499/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02499-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG

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

FASTVDO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Consolidated Case No.: 3:16-cv-00385-

H-WVG

LEAD CASE

Member Cases:

3:16-cv-00386-H-WVG 

3:16-cv-00394-H-WVG 

3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG

3:16-cv-00396-H-WVG

ORDER ADMINSTRATIVELY 

CLOSING THE CONSOLIDATED 

ACTION

FASTVDO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM 

U.S.A., INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02499-H-WVG

ORDER ADMINSTRATIVELY 

CLOSING THE ACTION

Case 3:16-cv-02499-H-WVG Document 33 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG

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

On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff FastVDO LLC filed several complaints for patent 

infringement against Defendants Apple Inc., Samsung,1 LG,2 Huawei,3 and ZTE (USA), 

Inc., among others,4 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, 

alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482. (Doc. No. 1, Compl; 16-cv-386-Doc. 

No. 1; 16-cv-390-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv-394-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv-395-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv-396-

Doc. No. 1.)5

 On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against 

Defendants Apple and AT&T. (Doc. No. 32.) On January 29, 2016, the Eastern District 

of Texas court consolidated the actions for all pretrial issues, except venue. (Doc. No. 58.) 

On February 11, 2016, the Eastern District of Texas court granted the parties’ joint 

motion to transfer venue and transferred the consolidated action from the Eastern District 

of Texas to the Southern District of California. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75.) On February 18, 2016, 

the cases were transferred to the calendar of the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff. (Doc. No. 

77.) On February 29, 2016, FastVDO served Defendants with its notice of asserted claims. 

(See Doc. No. 70; Doc. No. 242 at 11.) 

On June 16, 2016, Apple filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial 

 

1 Defendant “Samsung” refers to Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd.

2 Defendant “LG” refers to LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

3 Defendant “Huawei” refers to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei 

Technologies USA, Inc., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

4 On September 9, 2015, the Eastern District of Texas Court dismissed Defendant Dell, Inc. 

without prejudice. (16-cv-395-Doc. No. 31.) On April 29, 2016, the Court dismissed Defendants NEC 

Corporation and NEC Corporation of America with prejudice. (Doc. No. 132.) On October 21, 2016, 

the Court dismissed Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc. without prejudice. 

(Doc. No. 199.) On January 6, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Microsoft Mobile Inc. with 

prejudice. (Doc. No. 235.) Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, and ZTE remain as the current defendants in 

Consolidated Case No. 16-cv-385.

5 All docket citations in this order are to the docket in Case No. 16-cv-385 unless otherwise noted 

in the citation.

Case 3:16-cv-02499-H-WVG Document 33 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG

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

and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of all of the asserted claims of the ’482 patent. 

(Doc. No. 217-2, Cappella Decl. Ex. A.) On June 16, 2016, Microsoft and Samsung also 

filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging 

the validity of four of the six asserted claims. (Id. Ex. B.) 

On December 16, 2016, the PTAB granted Apple’s petition, granted Microsoft and 

Samsung’s petition, and instituted inter partes review of the ’482 patent. (Doc. No. 217-

2, Cappella Decl. Exs. C, D.) On January 23, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motions 

to stay and stayed the present actions – Case Nos. 16-cv-385, 16-cv-386, 16-cv-394, 16-

cv-395, 16-cv-396, and 16-cv-2499 – pending the IPR proceedings. (Doc. No. 269.) 

On December 11, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision pursuant to 35 

U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in IPR 2016-01179, ordering that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 

12-14, 16, 17, and 28 of the ’482 patent are unpatentable. (Doc. No. 281-1, Ex. 1.) On 

December 11, 2017, the PTAB also issued a final written decision in IPR 2016-01203, 

ordering that claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 22-25, 28, and 29 are unpatentable. (Doc. No. 

281-2, Ex. 2.) On December 18, 2017, the parties filed a joint status report informing the 

Court of the PTAB’s decisions. (Doc. No. 281.)

On January 16, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status hearing regarding the PTAB 

decisions. Marc A. Fenster appeared for FastVDO. Brian E. Ferguson appeared for Apple. 

Nicholas H. Lee appeared for Samsung. Alex Chachkes appeared for LG. Peter Wied 

appeared for Huawei. Timothy A. Horton appeared for ZTE. During the telephonic 

hearing, Plaintiff FastVDO stated that it intends to appeal both of the PTAB decisions to 

the Federal Circuit. Nevertheless, the Court, exercising its sound discretion, concludes that 

under these circumstances, it is appropriate to administratively close the actions pending 

the outcome of FastVDO’s appeals to the Federal Circuit. At the telephonic hearing, each

party stated that it did not object to the Court’s decision to administratively close the case.

Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to administrative close Consolidated Case 

No. 16-cv-385 and Member Case Nos. 16-cv-386, 16-cv-394, 16-cv-395, and 16-cv-396,

and Related Case No. 16-cv-2499. The parties must file a joint status report within seven 

Case 3:16-cv-02499-H-WVG Document 33 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG

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

days from the date of any Federal Circuit decision regarding the PTAB proceedings. Upon 

completion of the appeals before the Federal Circuit, the parties may move to reopen the 

case, if necessary and as permitted by law, and provide suggestions to the Court on how to 

proceed in the actions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2018

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:16-cv-02499-H-WVG Document 33 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4