`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
` Case Nos. 6:16-cv-681-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-680-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-679-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-678-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-677-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-413-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-343-Orl-37-KRS
`6:16-cv-338-Orl-37-KRS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GLOBALUX LIGHTING LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`SHOW CAUSE ORDER
`
`The actions identified in the caption of this Show Cause Order (“Lighting Science
`
`Cases”)* are before the Court on the Notice of Pendency of Other Actions (“Notice”) filed
`
`by Lighting Science Group Corporation (“Plaintiff”) in each case. (See Docs. 6, 12.) In
`
`each Lighting Science Case, the Court entered a Related Case Order and Track Two
`
`Notice (“RC Order”), which directed Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark F. Warzecha (“Counsel”) to
`
`comply with Local Rule 1.04(d) and:
`
`[F]ile and serve a certification as to whether the instant action
`should be designated as a similar or successive case
`pursuant to Local Rule 1.04(a)(b).
`
`
`* To save space, the caption provides the case numbers for all eight Lighting
`Science Cases, but it identifies only one Defendant from Lighting Science Case Number
`6:16-cv-681-Orl-37KRS (“Case 681”). Further, because no meaningful difference exists
`between the Notices and pertinent Orders filed in the Lighting Science Cases, the Court
`only cites to the docket numbers assigned to the documents filed in Case 681.
`
`
`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 10 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID 194
`
`
`
`
`(See Doc. 10, p. 1.) Local Rule 1.04(d) provides in pertinent part:
`
`
`
`All counsel of record in any case have a continuing duty promptly to
`inform the Court and counsel of . . . any other case within the purview
`of this rule, as well as the existence of any similar or related case or
`proceeding pending before any other court or administrative agency.†
`Counsel shall notify the Court by filing and serving a “Notice of Pendency
`of Related Actions” that identifies and describes any related case.
`
`Cases are “related because of either a common question of fact or any other prospective
`
`duplication in the prosecution or resolution of the cases.” Local Rule 1.04(b).
`
`Here, the Lighting Science Cases concern three U.S. Patent Nos. 8,201,968
`
`(“‘968 Patent”), 8,672,518 (“‘518 Patent”), and 8,967,844 (“‘844 Patent”):
`
`Defendant
`
`Case
`
`Patent
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`
`Hypericon, Inc.
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`Sunoco Lighting, Inc.
`
`Panor Corporation
`
`S E L S, Inc.
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`EELS Company, Ltd.
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`
`Globalux Lighting LLC
`
`‘518 Patent
`‘844 Patent
`
`‘518 Patent
`‘844 Patent
`
`‘518 Patent
`‘844 Patent
`
`‘518 Patent
`‘844 Patent
`‘968 Patent
`
`‘518 Patent
`‘844 Patent
`‘968 Patent
`
`‘518 Patent
`‘844 Patent
`‘968 Patent
`
`‘968 Patent
`‘844 Patent
`
`‘518 Patent
`‘968 Patent
`
`16-cv-343
`(“Case 343”)
`
`16-cv-677
`(“Case 677”)
`
`16-cv-678
`(“Case 678”)
`
`16-cv-679
`(“Case 679”)
`
`
`
`16-cv-680
`(“Case 380”)
`
`
`
`Case 681
`
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`Sea Gull Lighting Products
`LLC
`
`Nicor, Inc.
`
`16-cv-338
`(“Case 338”)
`
`16-cv-413
`(“Case 413”)
`
`
`† The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an administrative agency.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 10 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID 195
`
`
`
`
`
`As the table above shows: (1) Cases 679, 680 and 681 involve all three of the
`
`
`
`Patents-at-Issue; (2) Cases 343, 677 and 678 involve two of the Patents-at-Issue—the
`
`‘518 and ‘844 Patents; and (3) the final two Lighting Science Cases—Cases 338 and
`
`413—concern the ‘968 Patent and either the ‘844 Patent or the ‘518 Patent. Three closed
`
`patent infringement actions filed by Plaintiff in this Court also involve the Patents-at-Issue
`
`(“Closed Cases”). Specifically, in closed Case No. 6:16-cv-344-Orl-40GJK, Plaintiff
`
`claimed that all three Patents-at-Issue were infringed, and in Case Nos. 6:13-cv-587-Orl-
`
`37GJK and 6:14-cv-195-Orl-37GJK, Plaintiff claimed that the ‘968 Patent was infringed.
`
`Thus, the Closed Cases also are “related” to the pending Lighting Science Cases.
`
`Further, these cases are not unrelated or dissimilar because a different Defendant is
`
`named in each case. Regardless of who the infringer is, claims from the same patents
`
`must be construed consistently. Indeed, duplicitous Markman proceedings is the precise
`
`evil avoided by compliance with Local Rule 1.04.
`
`Despite the obvious relatedness among the Lighting Science Cases and the
`
`Closed Cases, Counsel filed a Notice in each Lighting Science Case denying that “any
`
`pending or closed civil” case is related to a Lighting Science Case:
`
`(See Doc. 12.)‡ Such negative responses are inexplicable, and the Court can discern no
`
`
`
`
`‡ Counsel received copies of the following form to facilitate compliance with the
`RC Order and Local Rule 1.04:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 10 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID 196
`
`
`
`
`good faith basis for them. Further, the Court cannot find that the false Notices were
`
`
`
`harmless.
`
`The disclosure requirements imposed by Local Rule 1.04 and the RC Order
`
`promote procedural fairness and simplicity, and “secure just, expeditious and inexpensive
`
`determination of all proceedings.” See Local Rule 1.01(b). Absent diligent compliance
`
`with these requirements, related cases are unnecessarily complicated, delayed, and
`
`multiplied. See id. Indeed, because of the Notices in these Lighting Science Cases:
`
`(1) the Court has already expended precious resources to identify the actual related
`
`cases and to issue this Show Cause Order; and (2) because the false Notices have
`
`undermined the Court’s confidence in the veracity of Counsel’s filings, additional judicial
`
`resources will likely be expended to confirm the accuracy of such filings as these cases
`
`proceed.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
`
`
`
`
`(Doc. 10-1 (“Form Notice”))
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 10 Filed 05/19/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID 197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Counsel is DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE, on or before June 1, 2016, why
`
`the Court should not impose sanctions on him for his violations of
`
`Local Rule 1.04 and the RC Orders entered in each Lighting Science Case.
`
`2.
`
`On or before May 31, 2016, Plaintiff is DIRECTED TO FILE an amended
`
`Notice of Pendency of Related Cases in each open Lighting Science Case.
`
`3.
`
`The amended Notices must conform to the Form Notice and must identify
`
`every pending or closed civil or criminal case filed with this Court, or any
`
`other Federal or State court, or administrative agency.
`
`DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 18, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copies:
`
`Counsel of Record