Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04209/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04209-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE AND CONSOLIDATE CASES 

CASE NO: C07-04209 (SI) 

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

KENNETH E. KELLER (SBN 71450) kkeller@kksrr.com

THOMAS H. SLOAN, JR. (SBN 58322) tsloan@kksrr.com

MICHAEL D. LISI (SBN 196974) mlisi@kksrr.com

KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP 

114 Sansome Street, 4th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Phone: (415) 249-8330 

Fax: (415) 249-8333 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

MACROVISION CORPORATION 

REBECCA EDELSON (SBN150464) redelson@steptoe.com

STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 

2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Phone: (310) 734-3200 

Fax: (310) 734-3300 

STEVEN K. DAVIDSON (pro hac vice application to be submitted) sdavidso@steptoe.com

SCOTT DOYLE (pro hac vice application to be submitted) sdoyle@steptoe.com

STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 

1330 Connecticut Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20036-1795 

Phone: (202) 429-3000 

Fax: (202) 429-3902 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

MOTOROLA, INC. AND PLAINTIFF 

GENERAL INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MACROVISION CORPORATION, ) No. C 07-04209 (SI) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

 ) ORDER TO RELATE AND 

 vs. ) CONSOLIDATE CASES 

 ) 

MOTOROLA, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

_____________________________________ )

Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 11 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 1 of 6 Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 13 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 6
2 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE AND CONSOLIDATE CASES 

CASE NO: C07-04209 (SI) 

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

GENERAL INSTRUMENT ) No. C 07-04617 (WHA) 

CORPORATION, (d/b/a Home & Mobility ) 

Networks), ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

MACROVISION CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

_____________________________________ ) 

Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 3-12 and 7-12, Macrovision Corporation (“Macrovision”), 

Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”), and General Instruments, Inc. (“GI”) hereby stipulate and jointly 

request that the Court enter an order (a) determining that General Instrument Corp. v. 

Macrovision Corp., No. 07-04617 (WHA) (N.D. Cal.) (“GI Action”) is related to the earlier-filed 

action Macrovision Corporation v. Motorola, Inc., No. C 07-04209 (SI) (the “Macrovision 

Action”), and (b) consolidating the GI Action with the earlier filed Macrovision Action currently 

before this Court. 

Macrovision, Motorola and GI stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. The Macrovision Action was filed by Macrovision on August 17, 2007 and was 

assigned to this Court. In its Complaint, Macrovision claims that Motorola has infringed seven 

of Macrovision’s patents by selling cable set-top boxes (“STBs”) containing certain anti-copying 

technology offered by Macrovision. Macrovision Complaint, (Docket No. 1), ¶¶ 20-34. In 

addition, Macrovision claims that Motorola has breached a license agreement between the two 

parties by failing to make royalty payments for products sold by Motorola. Id. ¶¶ 20-34. 

Macrovision seeks, among other things, injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as money 

damages. Id. ¶¶ A-N. 

2. Macrovision’s Complaint also alleges that Motorola acquired GI in January 2000, 

and that GI’s prior License Agreement with Macrovision expired in June 2006. Id. ¶¶ 10-12. 

Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 11 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 2 of 6 Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 13 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 6
3 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE AND CONSOLIDATE CASES 

CASE NO: C07-04209 (SI) 

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

Accordingly, Macrovision’s Complaint relates, in part, to Motorola’s and/or GI’s contention that 

products sold by GI after GI was acquired by Motorola are at issue. 

3. On September 6, 2007, Motorola answered Macrovision’s Complaint and asserted 

counterclaims for declaratory relief against Macrovision. Specifically, Motorola seeks 

declaratory judgments that eight of Macrovision’s patents (including the seven that Macrovision 

alleges Motorola is infringing) are invalid and/or unenforceable for various reasons, including 

patent misuse. See Answer and Counterclaim, (Docket No. 7), ¶¶ 112-197. In addition, 

Motorola seeks declaratory judgments that its STBs do not infringe the Macrovision patents. Id.

4. On September 6, 2007, GI filed the GI Action in the Northern District of 

California against Macrovision. The GI Action was subsequently assigned to the Honorable 

William Alsup. In its complaint, GI asserts that there is a dispute between GI and Macrovision 

regarding the same patents at issue in the Macrovision Litigation. See GI Complaint, (Docket 

No. 1), ¶¶ 45-64. Moreover, GI claims that Macrovision has asserted that GI is not a valid 

licensee of Macrovision anti-copying technology, and has sued Motorola in this case based on 

products sold by GI. Id., ¶¶ 38, 45. 

5. GI seeks declaratory judgments that the same Macrovision patents at issue in 

Motorola’s counterclaims are invalid and/or unenforceable for various reasons, including patent 

misuse. In addition, GI seeks a declaration regarding the parties’ rights and obligations under the 

GI-Macrovision license agreement. Id., ¶¶ 65-154. 

6. Macrovision intends to answer GI’s Complaint and to assert various 

counterclaims against GI, including claims for infringement of the same patents asserted against 

Motorola in the Macrovision Action. 

7. Thus, Macrovision has filed or intends to file claims against Motorola and GI 

asserting that they have infringed certain of Macrovision’s patents and have breached the 

Motorola-Macrovision license agreement. Further, Motorola and GI have filed claims against 

Macrovision asserting that the same patents are invalid and/or unenforceable and that the GIMacrovision license agreement controls the parties’ relationship. 

Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 11 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 3 of 6 Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 13 Filed 09/26/07 Page 3 of 6
4 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE AND CONSOLIDATE CASES 

CASE NO: C07-04209 (SI) 

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. If the Macrovision Action and the GI Action were allowed to proceed before 

different judges, it is likely that there would be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and 

expense, as both courts would need to construe the scope of the license agreements and the 

patents, and ultimately address whether the patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. In addition, 

the potential for inconsistent results is palpable, given that both courts would be considering 

identical claims concerning the license agreements and Macrovision’s patents. 

9. On September 19, 2007, Judge Alsup issued an Order of Referral in the GI Action 

(Docket No. 9), finding that the GI Case “appears to be related” to the Macrovision Action, and 

referring the GI Action to this Court for a determination of whether the cases are related under 

Civil Local Rule 3-12. 

10. For the reasons set forth above, Macrovision and Motorola stipulate and agree, 

subject to Court approval, that the GI Action is related to the earlier-filed Macrovision Action, 

and should be assigned to this Court for further proceedings pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12. 

11. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides that “[w]hen actions 

involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint 

hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions 

consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid 

unnecessary costs.” 

12. As noted above, the Macrovision Action and the GI Action raise common 

questions of law and fact and are thus appropriate for consolidation. Both cases address whether 

there has been infringement of certain Macrovision patents, and will thus have common 

questions of law, i.e., questions concerning construction of the patents at issue, and common 

questions of fact, such as questions relating to which party sold certain products and whether 

such products infringe Macrovision’s patents. 

13. At the same time, both cases assert declaratory relief claims that the same 

Macrovision patents are invalid and/or unenforceable, once again raising common issues of law 

and fact. Moreover, the Macrovision Action and the GI Action both raises legal and factual 

Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 11 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 4 of 6 Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 13 Filed 09/26/07 Page 4 of 6
5 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE AND CONSOLIDATE CASES 

CASE NO: C07-04209 (SI) 

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

issues as to whether the Motorola-Macrovision license agreement or the GI-Macrovision license 

agreement controls the parties’ relationship. 

14. For all of those reasons, the parties further stipulate and agree, subject to approval 

by the Court, that the Macrovision Action and the GI Action should be consolidated pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. 

 

 

Dated: September 24, 2007 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP 

 By: ____________/s/____________________________ 

Kenneth E. Keller 

 Attorneys for 

 MACROVISION CORPORATION 

Dated: September 24, 2007 STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 

 

 By: ___________/s/_____________________________ 

 Rebecca Edelson 

 Attorneys for 

 MOTOROLA, INC. and GENERAL 

INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 

 

I hereby attest that I have been authorized by Rebecca Edelson to execute on her behalf 

this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Relate and Consolidate Cases. 

Executed on this 24 st day of September, 2007 at San Francisco, California. 

 /s/ 

MICHAEL D. LISI 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 11 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 5 of 6 Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 13 Filed 09/26/07 Page 5 of 6
6 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE AND CONSOLIDATE CASES 

CASE NO: C07-04209 (SI) 

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

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT HEREBY ORDERED: 

1) That the action entitled Macrovision Corporation v. Motorola, Inc., No. C 07-04209 (SI) 

(the “Macrovision Action”) is related to General Instrument Corp. v. Macrovision Corp., 

No. C 07-04617 (the “GI Action”), currently assigned to Judge William H. Alsup; 

2) that the GI Action is hereby assigned to this Court for further proceedings; and 

3) that the Macrovision Action and the GI Action share common issues of law and fact as 

described above, and are hereby consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

42. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: __________, 2007 ____________________________________ 

THE HON. SUSAN ILLSTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 11 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 6 of 6 Case 3:07-cv-04209-SI Document 13 Filed 09/26/07 Page 6 of 6