Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07918/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07918-3/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

1

Initially, on April 16, 2007, Hybrid filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction and noticed said motion for hearing on June 1, 2007. In the interim, the Court

conducted a case management conference, at which the Court continued the hearing on

said motion to July 13, 2007, to afford Hybrid the opportunity to amend the motion to

include, as an alternative ground for relief, a motion to transfer, any such amended motion

to be filed no later than June 8, 2007. Instead of filing an amended motion, however,

Hybrid filed the instant motion, which CoxCom interpreted to reflect Hybrid’s intent to

abandon the motion to dismiss and, as a consequence, CoxCom has not filed opposition to

that motion. Hybrid, in its reply, clarifies that it has not abandoned its motion to dismiss. In

light of CoxCom’s misunderstanding as to the need to oppose the motion to dismiss, and

because the Court has discretion to hear a motion to transfer in advance of ruling on the

motion to dismiss, see Fort Knox Music Inc. v. Baptiste, 257 F. 3d 108, 111-12 (2nd Cir.

2001); Koehring Co. v. Hyde Construction Co., 324 F. 2d 295, 297-98 (5th Cir. 1964); but

see Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co., 8 F. 3d 325, 329 (6th Cir. 1993), the Court will defer setting

a further briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss pending its determination of the motion

to transfer.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COXCOM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HYBRID PATENTS INCORPORATED,

Defendant /

No. C-06-7918 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING PARTIES

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING; VACATING

JULY 13, 2007 HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Hybrid Patents Incorporated’s (“Hybrid”) “Motion to

Transfer Under the ‘First-Filed’ Doctrine,” filed June 8, 2007, by which Hybrid seeks to

transfer the above-titled action to the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff CoxCom, Inc.

(“CoxCom”) has filed opposition, to which Hybrid has replied. Having reviewed the papers

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing

scheduled for July 13, 2007, in order to afford the parties the opportunity to file

supplemental briefing as set forth below.1

Case 3:06-cv-07918-MMC Document 45 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 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

2

In its reply, Hybrid points out that, after CoxCom filed its opposition, the District

Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Hybrid’s motion to amend to add CoxCom

as a defendant to the action brought therein by Hybrid, and, as a consequence, CoxCom is

now a party to the action pending in Texas. Neither Hybrid nor CoxCom, however, has

addressed the legal issue of whether, when a party is added to an earlier-filed action after

the later action is filed, the earlier-filed action becomes the “first-filed” action with respect to

such party.

Additionally, although Hybrid’s motion does not expressly argue that the instant

action should, in the alternative, be transferred for the convenience of the parties and

witnesses, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), CoxCom, in its opposition, argues that the action

should not be transferred under § 1404(a), and Hybrid, in its reply, responds that the action

should be so transferred. In making such respective arguments, however, neither Hybrid

nor CoxCom has addressed the factors generally considered by a district court in

determining whether to transfer an action under § 1404(a). See Decker Coal Co. v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F. 2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth nine factors

“court should consider”); see also A. J. Industries v. United States District Court, 503 F. 2d

384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding “feasibility of consolidation” with action in transferee court

is “significant factor in a transfer decision” and “even the pendency of an action in another

district is important because of the positive effects it might have in possible consolidation of

discovery and convenience to witnesses and parties”).

Accordingly, the Court will afford the parties the opportunity to file supplemental

briefing on the issues of (1) whether the recent joinder of CoxCom in the Texas action has

rendered the Texas action “first-filed” with respect to CoxCom and (2) whether, in light of

the factors ordinarily considered under § 1404(a), the action should or should not be

transferred for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.

Hybrid shall file a supplemental brief no later than July 20, 2007, such brief not to

exceed ten pages in length exclusive of exhibits. CoxCom shall file any supplemental

opposition no later than July 27, 2007, such brief not to exceed ten pages in length

Case 3:06-cv-07918-MMC Document 45 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 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

3

exclusive of exhibits. The matter will stand submitted as of July 27, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07918-MMC Document 45 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 3