Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 DESMARAIS LLP
John M. Desmarais (SBN 320875)
2 jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
3 Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917)
pmagic@desmaraisllp.com
4 Ameet A. Modi (Pro hac vice application to be
submitted)
5 amodi@desmaraisllp.com
230 Park Avenue
6 New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 351-3400
7 Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
8 Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
17 Defendant.
18
19 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby moves the Court to
20 consider whether this action should be related to another in this district, entitled VoIP-Pal.com
21 Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-06217-LHK (the “5:18-cv-06217-LHK” case), which is
22 assigned to the Honorable Judge Koh in the United States District Court for the Northern District
23 of California, San Jose Division and was transferred on October 11, 2018 from the United States
24 District Court for the District of Nevada. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the Second Amended
25 Complaint for Patent Infringement (and Exhibits A-F thereto) filed in the 5:18-cv-06217-LHK
27 This action and the 5:18-cv-06217-LHK case concern the same parties and substantially
28 the same property, transaction, or event, as defined by Civil L.R. 3-12(a). Specifically, the cases
APPLE’S UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 1 Case No. 3:18-cv-06216-JST
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
Case 3:18-cv-06216-JST Document 40 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 3
1 involve the same parties, Apple and VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”). Moreover, both actions
2 concern related patents, which identify the same named inventors and include almost identical
3 specifications. Further, the complaints in the two cases accuse many of the same Apple features,
4 functionalities and instrumentalities. (Compare D.I. 1 ¶¶ 25-27 (alleging infringement against
5 Apple’s Messages, FaceTime, and WiFi Calling features) with Ex. A ¶¶ 15-23 (alleging
6 infringement against Apple’s Messages and WiFi Calling features).)
7 It therefore appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor
8 and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.
9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 2 Case No. 3:18-cv-06216-JST
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
Case 3:18-cv-06216-JST Document 40 Filed 11/13/18 Page 3 of 3
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 On November 13, 2018, I caused the foregoing document, titled Defendant Apple Inc.’s
3 Unopposed Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, to be
4 electronically filed with the Court, which will cause a Notice of Electronic Filing to be
5 automatically generated by the Court’s electronic filing system and sent to all parties in this case,
6 which includes counsel for all parties in the 5:18-cv-06217-LHK case inasmuch as the parties
7 and counsel in the 5:18-cv-06217-LHK case are the same as in this case. Pursuant to Civil L.R.
8 3-12(b), a Chambers copy of this motion will be lodged with the assigned Judge in each
9 apparently related case.
_/s/ Peter Magic_____________
10
Peter Magic
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 3 Case No. 3:18-cv-06216-JST
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED