Opinion
18-CV-1765 21-CV-1167
01-03-2022
RAFFEL SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MAN WAH HOLDINGS LTD., INC., MAN WAH USA INC., and XYZ COMPANIES 1-10, Defendants. RAFFEL SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, MACY'S, INC., AND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REASSIGN CASE
NANCY JOSEPH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Currently pending before me is Raffel System, LLC's lawsuit against Man Wah Holdings Ltd., Inc., Man Wah (USA) Inc., and XYZ Companies 1-10 (collectively “Man Wah”), arising out of Man Wah's alleged infringement of various Raffel patents. On October 8, 2021, Raffel sued Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, Macy's, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation for selling furniture containing cup holders that allegedly infringe its U.S. Patent. No. 11, 089, 701 (“the ‘701 Patent”), which was issued on August 10, 2021. (Complaint in 21-CV-1167.) No. 21-CV-1167 was assigned to Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin.
Raffel now moves to reassign No. 21-CV-1167 to me because it relates to No. 18-CV-1765. Raffel asserts that the ‘701 Patents shares the same specifications as the patents addressed by the Court in No. 18-CV-1765. (Docket # 5 in 21-CV-1167 and Docket # 374 in 18-CV-1765.) Raffel states that it mistakenly failed to check the “related” case item when it filed the civil cover sheet in No. 21-CV-1167. (Id.) Defendants do not object to the motion.
Civil L.R. 3(b) (E.D. Wis.) provides that when the civil cover sheet discloses a pending related civil action, the new civil action will be assigned to the same judge. Factors to be considered in determining whether the actions are related include whether the actions: (i) arise from substantially the same transaction or events; (ii) involve substantially the same parties or property; or (iii) involve the same patent, trademark or copyright. Furthermore, the judge to whom the action with the lower case No. is assigned must resolve any dispute as to whether the actions are related.
Because No. 21-CV-1167 involves infringement of a patent with the same specifications as those patents already addressed by the Court in No. 18-CV-1765, I find No. 21-CV-1167 should be reassigned to this Court. Raffel's motion is granted.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IS IT HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reassign case (Docket # 374 in Case No. 18-CV-1765 and Docket # 5 in Case No. 21-CV-1167) is GRANTED. Case No. 21-CV-1167 is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph. Magistrate Judge Duffin is no longer assigned to the case.