Opinion
24-CV-01781-SVK (LJC)
05-14-2024
VDPP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VIVITEK CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER VACATING MARCH 28, 2024 ORDER RE: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
RE: DKT. NO. 10
LISA J. CISNEROS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On March 28, 2024 the undersigned issued an Order Re: Notice of Related Cases in this action, and in VDPP, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 24-cv-01672 (Motorola Case). In both cases the order was prompted by Plaintiff VDPP's filing of a “Plaintiff's Notice of Related Cases.” Exhibit A to the notice in this action identified two cases: (1) VDPP, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 24-cv-01672,1 and (2) VDPP, LLC v. Vivo, Inc., 24-cv-01118. ECF No. 6-1. Exhibit A in the Motorola Case identified one case: VDPP, LLC v. Optoma Technology, 24-cv-01118.
VDPP incorrectly asserts that Case No. 24-cv-01672 is brought against Motorola Mobility, Inc., but the defendant is Motorola Mobility, LLC.
After reviewing the patents at issue in all three cases and recognizing that the actions were filed by the same Plaintiff within two years of each other, the undersigned construed the notice in this action and the same notice in the Motorola Case as a “Notice of Pendency of Other Action Involving Same Patent,” pursuant to Patent Local Rule 2-1(a). Neither Plaintiff nor the Clerk had filed any notice in the lowest-numbered case, VDPP, LLC v. Optoma Technology, 24-cv-01118, as contemplated by that rule. The undersigned's order did not account for the application of Civil Local Rules 3-12(c) and (f), which provide that it is for the judge in the lowest-numbered case to take action finding cases related. The undersigned took action as the judge assigned to the higher numbered cases.
To correct the oversight, the March 28, 2024 order is vacated in this action, both as to the conclusion that the cases are related and as to the instruction to the Clerk to reassign the case. Accordingly, the order issued by the Clerk on March 29, 2024 in reliance on this Court's order is also vacated, ECF No. 11, and the notation on the docket indicating that this case is related to VDPP, LLC v. Vivo, Inc., 24-cv-01118, shall be removed. This order does not reach the question of whether the cases are in fact related, reserving that decision for others to address under procedures consistent with the Local Rules.
The Motorola Case was never related to VDPP, LLC v. Optoma Technology, 24-cv-01118, and it was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on April 22, 2024, ECF No. 12. No further action is needed with respect to the Motorola case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.