Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01390/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01390-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GUARDIAN ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC., a California corporation;

Plaintiff,

v.

MILLER MENDEL, INC., a 

Washington corporation; and 

TYLER MILLER, an individual,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01390 WBS AC

ORDER STAYING CASE

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Guardian Alliance Technologies, Inc. 

(“Guardian”) brought this action against Miller Mendel, Inc. and 

Tyler Miller seeking various forms of declaratory relief that two 

of defendants’ patents are invalid, as well as asserting claims 

for violations of § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C § 2, and 

various California state law claims. (Docket No. 1.) Before the 

court are defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s state law 

claims pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civil 

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 8
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

Code § 425.16, (Docket No. 11) and defendants’ motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety (Docket No. 12).

I. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff is a California-based company that creates 

and sells access to software for managing employee background 

checks, primarily for government organizations and law 

enforcement agencies. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 28.) Defendant Miller 

Mendel is a Seattle-based company that creates and sells access 

to similar software. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 28.) Defendant Tyler Miller is 

the founder and sole owner of Miller Mendel. (Rylander Decl. ¶4, 

Ex. A (Docket No. 15).) 

In April 2011, Tyler Miller (“Miller”) filed a 

provisional patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office, U.S. Patent Application No. 61/472,556, covering public 

safety background investigation management software. (Compl. ¶¶ 

48-49.) In April 2012, Miller filed a non-provisional patent 

application claiming priority to the provisional patent 

application. (Id. ¶ 53.) On June 30, 2015, Miller was issued 

U.S. Patent No. 9,070,098 (the “‘098 Patent”). (Id. ¶ 55.) In 

May 2015, Miller filed another non-provisional patent 

application, resulting in the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 

10,043,188 (the “‘188 Patent”) on August 7, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 56, 

58.) Miller licensed both patents to Miller Mendel. (Id. ¶ 59.)

Defendants have filed several lawsuits in different 

district courts alleging that plaintiff’s customers infringe the 

‘188 Patent through use of plaintiff’s platform.1 In October 

1 Defendants have not sued plaintiff directly for patent 

infringement. They have only sued plaintiff’s customers.

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 8
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

2018, both defendants sued the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 

the Western District of Oklahoma (the “Oklahoma Action”).2 See

Case No. 5:18-cv-00990 JD (W.D. Okla.). In February 2021, Miller 

Mendel sued Washington County, Oregon and the Washington County 

Sheriff’s Office in the District of Oregon (the “Oregon Action”). 

See Case No. 3:21-cv-00168 SB (D. Ore.). In May 2021, defendants 

sued Alaska State Troopers and James E. Cockrell, the 

Commissioner of the State of Alaska Department of Public Safety, 

in the District of Alaska (the “Alaska Action”). See Case No. 

3:21-cv-00129 (D. Alaska). Both the Oregon Action and the Alaska 

Action were stayed under the first-to-file rule because of the 

earlier-filed Oklahoma Action. In December 2021, Miller Mendel 

sued the City of Anna, Texas in the Eastern District of Texas 

(the “Texas Action). See Case No. 2:21-cv-00445 JRG (E.D. Tex.). 

As of the date of this order, both the Oklahoma Action 

and the Texas Action are ongoing. The Oklahoma Action remains 

pending in the Western District of Oklahoma. In the Texas 

Action, cross appeals were filed to the Federal Circuit following 

the district court’s orders granting defendant City of Anna’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings and invalidated the ‘188 

Patent,3 Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Tex., No. 2:21-cv2 In October 2019, Guardian (as a non-party in the 

Oklahoma Action) filed a petition with the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for inter partes review of the validity of 

the ‘188 Patent, IPR2020-00031. (Compl. ¶ 119, Ex. 30.) The 

PTAB denied review on March 26, 2020. (Id.)

3 Judge Gilstrap found the ‘188 Patent ineligible for 

patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. 

City of Anna, Tex., No. 2:21-cv-00445 JRG, 2022 WL 1437686, at 

*10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2022). On May 2, 2022, Miller Mendel 

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 8
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

4

00445 JRG, 2022 WL 1437686, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2022), and 

denying the city’s motion for attorneys’ fees,4 id., 2022 WL 

2704790, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2022). The appeals were

consolidated and are still pending. See Miller Mendel, Inc. v. 

City of Anna, Tex., No. 22-1753 (Fed. Cir.) (associated with Case

No. 22-1999).

II. Discussion

The first-to-file rule is “a generally recognized 

doctrine of federal comity . . . .” Pacesetter Sys. Inc. v. 

Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982). The rule 

allows a district court to stay, transfer, or dismiss proceedings 

where a similar case was previously filed in another district 

court. See Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 

787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015). “When applying the firstto-file rule, courts should be driven to maximize ‘economy, 

consistency, and comity.’” Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240 (quoting Cadle 

Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir. 

1999)); see also Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 95 (explaining that the 

first-to-file rule “is not a rigid or inflexible rule to be 

mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied with a view to 

appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit. See Miller Mendel, 

Inc. v. City of Anna, Tex., Case No. 22-1753 (Fed. Cir.). 

4 Judge Gilstrap denied the motion for attorneys’ fees on 

the ground that “finding the ‘188 Patent ineligibl[e] at the 

12(c) stage” does not mean Miller Mendel’s arguments to the 

contrary were “frivolous or objectively unreasonable.” Id., 2022 

WL 2704790, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2022). Furthermore, 

“Miller Mendel was entitled to believe that the ‘188 Patent was 

valid after it was examined and allowed by the [U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office].” Id. On July 8, 2022, the City of Anna 

appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit. See Miller Mendel, 

Inc. v. City of Anna, Tex., No. 22-1999 (Fed. Cir.). That appeal 

is still pending.

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 8
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

5

the dictates of sound judicial administration”). 

The first-to-file rule requires analysis of three 

factors: (1) chronology of the lawsuits; (2) similarity of the 

parties; and (3) similarity of the issues. Kohn, 787 F.3d at 

1240 (citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 

622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991)). The first-to-file rule does not 

require that the identities of the parties be identical, but 

rather “requires only substantial similarity of the parties.” 

Id. (citation omitted). Likewise, “[t]he issues in both cases 

also need not be identical, only substantially similar.” Id.

Here, the court need not analyze the issue of 

chronology because plaintiff does not argue that the present case 

was filed first. Tyler Miller and/or Miller Mendel is a party in 

the present case as well as the Texas Action and Oklahoma Action. 

While plaintiff in the present case is not a named party in 

either the Oklahoma Action or the Texas Action, plaintiff was 

contractually obligated to indemnify the City of Oklahoma City 

and the City of Anna against Miller Mendel’s patent infringement 

claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 99, 103.) As a result, plaintiff has funded 

the entirety of the defense in both the Oklahoma Action and Texas 

Action. Because the parties in the present case are all heavily 

involved in the previously filed cases, the court finds the 

parties are substantially similar. See Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240

(finding the parties were substantially similar even though the 

defendant in one case was not a named party in the other case). 

In finding that the first-to-file rule applied even though a 

defendant in the first action was not named in the second action, 

the court in Kohn explained that “a contrary holding could allow 

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 8
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

6

a party . . . to skirt the first-to-file rule by omitting one 

party from a second lawsuit. . . .” Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1240. 

Similarly, here, defendants’ choice to sue only plaintiff’s 

customers for patent infringement, rather than sue plaintiff 

directly, should not render the first-to-file rule inapplicable.

“To determine whether two suits involve substantially 

similar issues, [the court] look[s] at whether there is 

‘substantial overlap’ between the two suits.” Id., 787 F.3d at 

1241 (citation omitted). Here, the central questions in both the 

present case and the previously filed cases are the validity and 

enforceability of the ‘098 and ‘188 Patents. Plaintiff’s four 

claims for declaratory relief ask this court to find the ‘098 and 

‘188 Patents invalid and unenforceable. (Compl. ¶¶ 128-145.) 

“[P]ermitting multiple litigations of these identical claims 

could serve no purpose of judicial administration, and the risk 

of conflicting determinations as to the patents’ validity and 

enforceability [is] clear.” See Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 96. 

Furthermore, plaintiff’s two Sherman Act claims are at least in 

part based on defendants’ patent infringement lawsuits, which 

seek to enforce the same patents that plaintiff claims are 

invalid and unenforceable. (Id. ¶¶ 146-159.) As such, six of 

plaintiff’s eleven claims involve the validity and enforceability 

of the patents and thus there is “substantial overlap” between 

the cases. Kohn, 787 F.3d at 1241 (finding similar issues where 

both cases involved claims to the same funds). 

Defendants contend that dismissal is warranted because 

plaintiff “may file its claims in the Oklahoma action to the 

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 6 of 8
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

7

extent necessary.” 5 (See Mot. to Dismiss at 2). The existence 

of plaintiff’s state law claims, however, counsel against 

outright dismissal. Were another district court to find the 

patents invalid or otherwise dismiss defendants’ patent 

enforcement action, plaintiff would have to file a new suit in 

California and could risk encountering statute of limitation 

problems. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 629 (citing Asset Allocation 

& Mgt. v. Western Employers Ins., 892 F.2d 566, 571 (7th Cir. 

1989) (“Granted, the statute of limitations problems may not be 

serious . . . . But why take chances? It is simpler just to 

stay the [later] suit”.)) Accordingly, because the central 

issues in the present case--the validity and enforceability of 

defendants’ patents--are the same as the previously filed cases, 

the court finds the first-to-file rule is applicable to the 

present case and warrants a stay. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to 

strike (Docket No. 11) and motion to dismiss (Docket No. 12), be 

and hereby are, DENIED without prejudice, and the hearing on 

those motions set for January 9, 2023, and any other deadlines in 

this case, are hereby VACATED;

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this 

case are hereby STAYED pending final adjudication of the validity 

of the ‘098 and ‘188 Patents by the Federal Circuit. The parties 

5 Plaintiff argues that the first-to-file rule is not 

applicable here because of various issues it identifies with

transferring the case to the Western District of Oklahoma. (See

Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 9 (Docket No. 30).) However, the 

court need not address plaintiff’s concerns because the court is 

staying the case, not transferring it. 

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 7 of 8
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

8

shall file a joint status report within fourteen days after all 

proceedings in the Federal Circuit regarding the ‘098 and ‘188 

Patents have concluded.

Dated: December 7, 2022

Case 2:22-cv-01390-WBS-AC Document 34 Filed 12/08/22 Page 8 of 8