Case 2:16-cv-00393-RWS Document 35 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 223
`Case 2:16—cv-00393-RWS Document 35 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 223
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00393-RWS
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00393-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00394-RWS
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00394-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00395-RWS
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00395-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00396-RWS
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00396-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00397-RWS
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00397-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`WWWWWW
`
` §
`
`WWWWWW
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`WWWWWW
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`WWWWWW
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`WWWWWW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`V.
`v.
`
`AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.
`AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`V.
`v.
`
`BITDEFENDER LLC
`BITDEFENDER LLC
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`V.
`v.
`
`GOG LTD.
`GOG LTD.
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`v.
`v.
`
`PIRIFORM, INC.
`PIRIFORM, INC.
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`V.
`v.
`
`UBISOFT, INC.
`UBISOFT, INC.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00393-RWS Document 35 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 224
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00398-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00871-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-00872-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`v.
`
`VALVE CORPORATION
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`
`v.
`
`KASPERSKY LAB, INC.
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`v.
`
`SQUARE ENIX, INC.
`
`
`CONSOLIDATION ORDER
`
`The passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which clarified the joinder
`
`requirements for cases alleging patent infringement, resulted in a significant increase in the
`
`number of “serially” filed patent cases on the Court’s docket. Such serially filed cases, by their
`
`nature, involve common issues of law or fact, including claim construction and validity. “If
`
`actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for
`
`hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue
`
`any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). In applying Rule 42,
`
`a court has considerable discretion. In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see
`
`Lurea v. M/V Albeta, 635 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2011) (“. . . Rule 42(a) provides district courts
`
`with broad authority to consolidate actions that ‘involve a common question of law or fact.’ ”).
`
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00393-RWS Document 35 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 225
`
`
`
`Because the above-styled cases involve a common question of law or fact, consolidating these
`
`cases promotes efficient case management.
`
`Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the above-styled cases are consolidated for pretrial
`
`issues only, with the exception of venue. The earliest filed civil action (2:16-CV-00393-RWS)
`
`shall serve as the lead case for the consolidated issues. The Clerk of the Court shall add the
`
`consolidated defendants to the lead case, as well as lead and local counsel only. Any other
`
`counsel who wishes to appear in the lead case shall file a notice of appearance in that case. The
`
`originally filed member cases will remain active for venue motions and trial. Additionally, all
`
`pending motions will be considered as filed and without any prejudice due to consolidation
`
`(responsive briefs should be filed in the same case as the pending motion). Should the parties
`
`file motions to transfer or motions to sever and transfer, the Court will consider these motions
`
`only as to the defendants in the member cases, not as to all defendants in the pretrial consolidated
`
`case.1 See Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 6:12CV508, 2012 WL 3307942,
`
`at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2012). All future pretrial filings, other than venue motions, shall be
`
`filed in the lead case.
`
`The page limitations in the local rules for Markman briefs and other motions will apply to
`
`the lead case. To further promote judicial economy and to conserve the parties’ resources, the
`
`Court encourages the parties to file a notice in the event that there are other related cases
`
`currently pending on the Court’s docket, as well as any future cases Plaintiff intends to file, that
`
`may also be appropriate for consolidation with the lead case.
`
`
`
`
`1 If one or more defendants wish to file a consolidated venue motion, those defendants may, at
`their election, file consolidated briefing in the lead case that clearly indicates which defendants
`have joined the motion.
`
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00393-RWS Document 35 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 226
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 1st day of November, 2016.
`
`