Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06740/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06740-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNILOC USA INC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A. INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case Nos. 18-cv-06737-JST; 18-cv-06739-

JST; 18-cv-06740-JST

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY

AND DECLINING TO CONSOLIDATE

CASES

Re: ECF No. 66, 75

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.’s motion to 

substitute Uniloc 2017 LLC as plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c), filed in 

Uniloc USA Inc. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 18-cv-06737-JST, ECF No. 66.1 Defendants 

opposed the motion, citing concerns that Uniloc 2017 or the original Plaintiffs lack standing to 

pursue this action. ECF No. 71 at 8-10. 

After Defendants filed their opposition, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to relate to 

two other cases between the same parties. ECF No. 74.2 The Court then issued an order to show 

cause why the cases should not also be consolidated. ECF No. 75.

On reply, Plaintiffs expand their substitution request to two related cases. ECF No. 77 at 

2. Despite the lack of a formal motion, the Court construes this motion as applying to all three 

above-captioned cases for purposes of judicial economy. Plaintiffs also filed an opposition to 

consolidation, ECF No. 80, while Defendants filed a brief in favor of consolidation, ECF No. 82.

For the following reasons, the Court will join Uniloc 2017 LLC as a party and decline to 

 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent ECF citations are to the docket for 18-cv-06737-JST.

2 The two other cases are 18-cv-06739-JST and 18-cv-6740-JST.

Case 3:18-cv-06740-JST Document 75 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 4
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

consolidate the cases.

I. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE

Rule 25(c) provides that “[i]f an interest is transferred, the action may be continued by or 

against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted in the 

action or joined with the original party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c). Under Rule 25(c), “The transferee 

is not joined because its substantive rights are in question; rather, the transferee is brought into 

court solely because it has come to own the property in issue.” Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Eco 

Chem, Inc., 757 F.2d 1256, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, “[t]he merits of the case, and the 

disposition of the property, are still determined vis-a-vis the originally named parties.” Id. The 

rule “leaves the substitution decision to [the trial] court’s sound discretion.” In re Bernal, 207 

F.3d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 2000).

“In the area of patent infringement, [the Federal Circuit] has held that if the original 

plaintiff lacked Article III initial standing, the suit must be dismissed, and the jurisdictional defect 

cannot be cured by the addition of a party with standing.” Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice 

Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Paradise Creations, Inc. v. U V Sales, 

Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Conversely, “the temporary loss of standing during 

patent litigation can be cured before judgment.” Id. (citing Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat 

Contracting, Inc., 385 F.3d 1360, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In other words, regardless whether 

the Court permits substitution, this lawsuit cannot proceed unless Uniloc USA and Uniloc 

Luxembourg had standing at the time the suit was filed. See Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. 

CIV. 05-3165 (RBK), 2008 WL 5401604, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008), aff’d, 374 F. App’x 956 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (dismissing action where “Mars, because of its lack of standing, could not assert a 

claim of infringement of the ’589 patent, and therefore MEI, joined as a successor in interest, 

cannot do so”). And Uniloc 2017 cannot proceed as the sole plaintiff unless it has standing now, 

presumably derived from the purported transfer of interests in the patents-in-suit. See Schreiber 

Foods, 402 F.3d at 1203. 

Defendants raise non-frivolous concerns that allowing the original Plaintiffs to depart this 

litigation would thwart Defendants’ ability to conduct the discovery necessary to clarify who, if 

Case 3:18-cv-06740-JST Document 75 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 4
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

anyone, has standing. ECF No. 71 at 9-10.3 In similar circumstances, other courts have exercised 

their discretion to join the transferee, rather than substituting that entity, until the ownership of the 

patent could be resolved. See Mars, Inc. 2008 WL 5401604, at *1 (“Because the evidence 

presented by the parties did not clearly show whether Mars, MEI or a third party currently owned 

the patent, the Court joined MEI as a party plaintiff, rather than substituting MEI for Mars.”); cf.

Trend Micro Corp. v. Whitecell Software, Inc., No. C 10-02248 WHA, 2010 WL 4722504, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2010) (where declaratory judgment infringer “raised significant doubts over 

whether the [defendant patentee’s] assignment of the ’744 patent was an improper and potentially 

collusive maneuver to divest th[e] Court of jurisdiction,” ordering limited jurisdictional discovery 

into terms of transaction to determine whether actual controversy still existed).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court joins Uniloc 2017 as a party under Rule 25(c). The 

Court does not resolve the question of any Uniloc entity’s standing at this time.4

II. CONSOLIDATION

Rule 42(a) provides that a court may consolidate cases which “involve a common question 

of law or fact.” 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 Cal., 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.’” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 

1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., 720 F.

Supp. 805, 806-07 (N.D. Cal. 1989)).

 

3 The Court notes that, in a series of cases proceeding in this district between Uniloc and Apple, 

Inc., the Uniloc entities filed a materially identical substitution motion before Judge Alsup. See 

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 18-cv-00360-WHA, ECF No. 119. As shown in Plaintiffs’ 

statement of recent decision, Judge Alsup exercised his discretion to keep Uniloc Luxembourg as 

part of the litigation, citing in part these same concerns about discovery. See LGE, 18-cv-06737-

JST, ECF No. 81-1 at 10.

4

It is unclear from Defendants’ opposition whether they oppose the joinder, rather than the 

substitution, of Uniloc 2017. Nonetheless, the Court anticipates that the addition of Uniloc 2017 

will facilitate the resolution of any standing issues. Nothing in this order precludes Defendants 

from bringing an appropriate motion on that basis in the future.

Case 3:18-cv-06740-JST Document 75 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 4
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

Here, while consolidation here would offer some benefits, the Court concludes upon 

consideration that the cases are not sufficiently similar. The cases relate to different patents, with 

mostly different inventors (other than one overlapping inventor between the ’079 and ’106 patents), 

different standards, and different technologies. LGE argues that the cases involve “a common group 

of smartphone products,” ECF No. 82 at 3, and “involve wireless communication technologies,”

id., and that “all three cases involve the legal issue of patent infringement,” id. at 4. But these 

same broad statements could apply to a host of patent infringement cases in the wireless 

communication sector and do not overcome the differences among the cases. 

The Court concludes that judicial convenience would not be served by consolidating the 

three cases. In making this ruling, the Court is relying on the good faith and reasonable judgment 

of counsel in sharing common information across cases. The Court may revisit the question of 

consolidation later in the case. 

III. PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Finally, the Court notes that motions to dismiss were previously filed in each case before 

these actions were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See

No. 18-cv-06737-JST, ECF No. 34; No. 18-cv-06739-JST, ECF No. 31; No. 18-cv-06740-JST, 

ECF No. 34. In case number 18-cv-06739, Defendants re-filed their motion to dismiss, and the 

Court issued an order stating that it would not entertain the motion to dismiss until resolving the 

above questions. No. 18-cv-06739-JST, ECF Nos. 67, 68. In their forthcoming joint case 

management statement, ECF No. 76, the parties should propose a joint or competing schedules for 

the briefing and hearing of these motions. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court joins Uniloc 2017 LLC as a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 

25(c) and declines to consolidate the cases pursuant to Rule 42(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06740-JST Document 75 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 4