Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00710/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00710-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation, COMMUNITY TRUST FINANCIAL

CORPORATION, a Louisiana corporation, and

COMMUNITY TRUST BANK, a Louisiana corporation,

MOBILE MONEY VENTURES, LLC, a Delaware

Limited Liability corporation, MERITRUST CREDIT

UNION, a Kansas corporation, PROFESSIONAL

FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, an Indiana corporation,

SANFORD INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS, a Maine

corporation, FORT WORTH COMMUNITY CREDIT

UNION, a Texas corporation, USE CREDIT UNION, a

California corporation, GATE CITY BANK, A

Minnesota corporation, BUSEY BANK, an Illinois

corporation, DENSION STATE BANK, a Kansas

corporation, FIDELITY BANK, a Massachusetts

corporation, FIRST INTERNET BANK OF INDIANA,

an Indiana corporation, and VISION BANK, a Florida

corporation,

Defendants. /

DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION d/b/a INTUIT

FINANCIAL SERVICES, a Delaware corporation,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Counterdefendant. /

No. C 10-00710 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO

INTERVENE AND

VACATING HEARING

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 118 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 this patent infringement action, applicant SK C&C Co. (“SK”), a South Korean

company, moves to intervene as a defendant. SK moves to intervene as a matter of right, or in

the alternative, permissively, in order to protect its interest in software that it sells to defendant

Mobile Money Ventures (“MMV”). In response to plaintiff’s complaint, MMV sought

indemnification from SK, on the basis that the allegedly infringing product was the “banking

solution provided by SK.” Helge Decl. ¶ 2. MMV packages SK’s software into a mobile banking

solution, and in partnership with defendant Intuit Financial Services (“IFS”), resells the mobile

banking solution to customers of IFS. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint names MMV, IFS, and

twelve bank customers of IFS, as defendants. SK filed a proposed answer to plaintiff’s original

complaint, including affirmative defenses and counterclaims, in parallel with the instant motion. 

Defendants and plaintiff have both filed statements of non-opposition to SK’s motion to

intervene.

Rule 24(a) governs the instant motion. An applicant seeking intervention as of right must

show that: (1) it has a “significant protectable interest” relating to the property that is the subject

of the action; (2) disposition of the action may impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect

its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties do not adequately represent

the applicant’s interest. Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998). In the Ninth

Circuit, district judges should interpret these requirements “broadly in favor of intervention.” 

Ibid. 

First, applicant SK has a significant protectable interest in this proceeding: the software

that it sells to defendant MMV is the mobile banking solution is the subject of plaintiff’s

infringement action.

Second, if SK were not allowed to intervene, its ability to defend its interests in this matter

would be impaired by any defense, settlement, or order disposing of this proceeding.

Third, SK timely filed its application to intervene. Non-expert discovery will not come

to a close for another eight months. Trial is not scheduled to begin for another eleven months. 

Fourth, SK is not adequately represented by existing parties to this proceeding. 

SK’s software is at the core of plaintiff’s infringement allegation. Furthermore, SK has been

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 118 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

asked to indemnify defendant MMV for any liability that results from this proceeding. MMV is

indemnifying IFS, and IFS is indemnifying its twelve bank customers who have been named

as defendants. If the instant motion were denied, SK would essentially be asked to indemnify

fourteen defendants without having an opportunity to defend itself against plaintiff’s claims. 

SK’s application to intervene meets the four Donnelly requirements. SK has demonstrated that

it is entitled to intervene as a matter of right, and therefore discussion of its motion to intervene

permissively is unnecessary.

For the aforementioned reasons, applicant SK’s motion to intervene as a defendant in this

action is GRANTED. SK must file its answer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint, including any

affirmative defenses and counterclaims, within SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS of this order. No parties

oppose SK’s intervention. Accordingly, the hearing on the instant motion, scheduled for JULY 8,

2010, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 118 Filed 06/24/10 Page 3 of 3