Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03345/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03345-2/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

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03345-EMC 

ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT MOOT

Docket No. 78

Micron Europe has filed a motion to dismiss MLC’s first amended complaint. This motion 

was filed just a few days before the Court issued its order (1) granting in part and denying in part 

the motions to dismiss filed by Micron, Micron Semiconductor, and Micron Consumer and (2) 

finding IM Flash’s motion to dismiss moot. See Docket No. 82 (order). 

The Court has now reviewed the papers filed by Micron Europe and MLC in conjunction 

with Micron Europe’s motion to dismiss. It finds that the approach taken with respect to IM 

Flash’s motion should be taken here. That is, because the arguments made by Micron Europe are 

the same or at least similar to those raised by the other defendants referenced above, and because 

MLC will be filing a second amended complaint to address deficiencies, it makes the most sense 

to find Micron Europe’s motion to dismiss the FAC moot. After MLC files its second amended 

complaint, all Micron Defendants, including Micron Europe, shall have three weeks to respond to 

that pleading. 

Because the defendants are likely to file another round of 12(b)(6) motions and may well 

have overlapping arguments once again, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer to see 

whether a single “consolidated” motion to dismiss is possible and a single “consolidated” 

opposition. The Court is open to altering page limitations if this approach is taken. The Court 

Case 3:19-cv-03345-EMC Document 86 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 2
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

recognizes that defendants may have arguments unique to them but that does not preclude a 

consolidated motion to dismiss that addresses overlapping arguments and then goes on to address 

arguments unique.

The hearing on Micron Europe’s motion to dismiss is VACATED.

This order disposes of Docket No. 78.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03345-EMC Document 86 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 2