Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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 - 02CV2060 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

and MULTIMEDIA PATENT TRUST,

Plaintiffs,

Case Number: 02-CV- 2060-B (CAB)

consolidated with

 03-CV-0699-B (CAB) and

 03-CV-1108-B (CAB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SEVER CLAIMS 2-7

AND 9 OF U.S. PATENT NO.

5,649,131 FOR TREATMENT IN A

SEPARATE CASE

[Docket Nos. 2258 & 2261]

vs.

GATEWAY, INC, et al.,

Defendants, 

and

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Intervening Defendant, __________________________________

and related counterclaim.

__________________________________

Defendant Dell Inc.’s motion seeks “to Sever Claims 2-7 and 9 of U.S. Patent No.

5,649,131 to Ackerman et al. for Treatment in a Separate Case” and Defendant Microsoft

Corporation joined it. Having heard and considered the arguments of counsel, the Court

denies the motion.

Dell cites Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in

pertinent part: “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court

may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims,

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 2301 Filed 11/17/08 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

1

On a housekeeping note, Dell filed its motion on October 8, 2008. [#2257] Dell’s

separate motion for summary judgment was scheduled to be heard on October 14th, and a

clerk mistakenly noticed the newly-filed motion for that same date. [# 2260] Before the

clerk clarified the confusion, Dell submitted a supplemental brief because it was under the

impression that it would not have time to file a reply brief. Because Dell’s opening brief was

only six pages, the Court will consider the six-page supplemental brief. Local Civ. R. 7.1(h)

(limiting brief to 25 pages). Lucent had adequate time to consider the supplemental brief

before filing its opposition on October 27th, and Dell thereafter filed a reply brief. 

- 2 - 02CV2060 

or third-party claims.” Dell’s motion has both procedural and substantive aspects.

Addressing the latter issue first, Dell argues that the asserted method claims 2-7 and 9

are defective as a matter of law pursuant to the “divided infringement” principle because Dell

does not control the users who access Dell’s website over the Internet. Muniauction, Inc. v.

Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“where the actions of multiple parties

combine to perform every step of a claimed method, the claim is directly infringed only if 

one party exercises ‘control or direction over the entire process such that every step is

attributable to the controlling party, i.e., the ‘mastermind.’”).1

 Dell seeks a separate case for

these allegedly baseless patent claims, not for reasons of expediency, economy, or prejudice,

but rather so that Dell will be in a position to seek costs and exceptional case attorneys’ fees

in the event it becomes the prevailing party on only Claims 2-7 and 9,even if it lost the case as

to Claim 1. Dell does not seek bifurcation of patent claims for separate trial in the same case

to the same jury. Lucent opposes the motion and presented its substantive analysis that Dell is

directly infringing each step of the method claims in suit.

As to the procedural aspect of Dell’s request, this Motion has all the earmarks of a

summary adjudication motion of non-infringement of Claims 2-7 and 9; however, Dell

expressly states that it is not seeking summary adjudication and the court will not treat it as

such. Obviously, if summary adjudication on Claims 2-7 and 9 were granted, Claim 1 would

remain in the case. If Dell then lost the verdict on Claim 1, it would not be the prevailing

party, and would not be entitled to any court costs, let alone exceptional case relief. Only if

Dell prevailed on all claims of the ‘131 patent here in dispute would it have standing to

request exceptional case relief in addition to court costs. See Manildra Milling Corp.v.

Ogilvie 

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 2301 Filed 11/17/08 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 - 02CV2060 

Mills, Inc., 76 F.3d 1178, 1182-83 (Fed.Cir. 1996).

The basis for Dell’s motion is to create the possibility for Dell to become the 

prevailing party in one case on part of the ‘131 patent, even if Lucent is the prevailing party

on the other part of the patent. That basis is not only fraught with additional issues of res

judicata, bar, and duplication of effort and expense, but sets up the potential for

accomplishing indirectly that which is not permitted directly.

The Court finds that Dell’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) is not

meritorious for all the reasons stated above, and accordingly the Court DENIES Defendants’

Motion to Sever [#2258], and GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental

Memorandum [#2261].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2008

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 2301 Filed 11/17/08 Page 3 of 3