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
`
`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 52 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.193 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Consolidated Case No.: 3:16-cv-00385-
`H-WVG
`LEAD CASE
`
`Member Cases:
`3:16-cv-00386-H-WVG
`3:16-cv-00394-H-WVG
`3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG
`3:16-cv-00396-H-WVG
`
`ORDER ADMINSTRATIVELY
`CLOSING THE CONSOLIDATED
`ACTION
`
` Case No.: 3:16-cv-02499-H-WVG
`
`ORDER ADMINSTRATIVELY
`CLOSING THE ACTION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`1
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 52 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.194 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff FastVDO LLC filed several complaints for patent
`infringement against Defendants Apple Inc., Samsung,1 LG,2 Huawei,3 and ZTE (USA),
`Inc., among others,4 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
`alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482. (Doc. No. 1, Compl; 16-cv-386-Doc.
`No. 1; 16-cv-390-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv-394-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv-395-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv-396-
`Doc. No. 1.)5 On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
`Defendants Apple and AT&T. (Doc. No. 32.) On January 29, 2016, the Eastern District
`of Texas court consolidated the actions for all pretrial issues, except venue. (Doc. No. 58.)
`
`On February 11, 2016, the Eastern District of Texas court granted the parties’ joint
`motion to transfer venue and transferred the consolidated action from the Eastern District
`of Texas to the Southern District of California. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75.) On February 18, 2016,
`the cases were transferred to the calendar of the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff. (Doc. No.
`77.) On February 29, 2016, FastVDO served Defendants with its notice of asserted claims.
`(See Doc. No. 70; Doc. No. 242 at 11.)
`
`On June 16, 2016, Apple filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial
`
`
`
`1
`Defendant “Samsung” refers to Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Defendant “LG” refers to LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
` 3
`
`Defendant “Huawei” refers to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei
`
`Technologies USA, Inc., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
`
` 4
`
`On September 9, 2015, the Eastern District of Texas Court dismissed Defendant Dell, Inc.
`
`without prejudice. (16-cv-395-Doc. No. 31.) On April 29, 2016, the Court dismissed Defendants NEC
`Corporation and NEC Corporation of America with prejudice. (Doc. No. 132.) On October 21, 2016,
`the Court dismissed Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc. without prejudice.
`(Doc. No. 199.) On January 6, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Microsoft Mobile Inc. with
`prejudice. (Doc. No. 235.) Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, and ZTE remain as the current defendants in
`Consolidated Case No. 16-cv-385.
`
` 5
`
`All docket citations in this order are to the docket in Case No. 16-cv-385 unless otherwise noted
`
`in the citation.
`
`
`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
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 52 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.195 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of all of the asserted claims of the ’482 patent.
`(Doc. No. 217-2, Cappella Decl. Ex. A.) On June 16, 2016, Microsoft and Samsung also
`filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging
`the validity of four of the six asserted claims. (Id. Ex. B.)
`
`On December 16, 2016, the PTAB granted Apple’s petition, granted Microsoft and
`Samsung’s petition, and instituted inter partes review of the ’482 patent. (Doc. No. 217-
`2, Cappella Decl. Exs. C, D.) On January 23, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motions
`to stay and stayed the present actions – Case Nos. 16-cv-385, 16-cv-386, 16-cv-394, 16-
`cv-395, 16-cv-396, and 16-cv-2499 – pending the IPR proceedings. (Doc. No. 269.)
`On December 11, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in IPR 2016-01179, ordering that claims 1-3, 5, 6,
`12-14, 16, 17, and 28 of the ’482 patent are unpatentable. (Doc. No. 281-1, Ex. 1.) On
`December 11, 2017, the PTAB also issued a final written decision in IPR 2016-01203,
`ordering that claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 22-25, 28, and 29 are unpatentable. (Doc. No.
`281-2, Ex. 2.) On December 18, 2017, the parties filed a joint status report informing the
`Court of the PTAB’s decisions. (Doc. No. 281.)
`
`On January 16, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status hearing regarding the PTAB
`decisions. Marc A. Fenster appeared for FastVDO. Brian E. Ferguson appeared for Apple.
`Nicholas H. Lee appeared for Samsung. Alex Chachkes appeared for LG. Peter Wied
`appeared for Huawei. Timothy A. Horton appeared for ZTE. During the telephonic
`hearing, Plaintiff FastVDO stated that it intends to appeal both of the PTAB decisions to
`the Federal Circuit. Nevertheless, the Court, exercising its sound discretion, concludes that
`under these circumstances, it is appropriate to administratively close the actions pending
`the outcome of FastVDO’s appeals to the Federal Circuit. At the telephonic hearing, each
`party stated that it did not object to the Court’s decision to administratively close the case.
`
`Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to administrative close Consolidated Case
`No. 16-cv-385 and Member Case Nos. 16-cv-386, 16-cv-394, 16-cv-395, and 16-cv-396,
`and Related Case No. 16-cv-2499. The parties must file a joint status report within seven
`
`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
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG Document 52 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.196 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`days from the date of any Federal Circuit decision regarding the PTAB proceedings. Upon
`completion of the appeals before the Federal Circuit, the parties may move to reopen the
`case, if necessary and as permitted by law, and provide suggestions to the Court on how to
`proceed in the actions.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: January 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`