84
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 84 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 372
- Pages: 2
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
Document 84
Filed 02/02/2009
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9
RAMBUS, INC.
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
12 13
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NOS. 08-3343 AND 08-5500
Plaintiff,
10 11
No. C 08-3343 SI, C 08-5500
v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant.
/
14 Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is scheduled for a hearing on February 6, 2009. Pursuant to 15 Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral 16 argument, and VACATES the hearing. 17 The day after Rambus filed this patent lawsuit, defendant NVIDIA filed an antitrust lawsuit in 18 the Middle District of North Carolina. That lawsuit, NVIDIA Corp. v. Rambus Inc., C 08-5500 SI, 19 which has since been transferred to this District, alleges that Rambus’ procurement and subsequent 20 enforcement of certain patents violates the Sherman Act. The North Carolina court transferred 21 NVIDIA’s antitrust action to this District on the ground that NVIDIA’s antitrust claims properly 22 belonged as counterclaims to Rambus’ patent infringement claims in this case. 23 Plaintiff now moves to consolidate the two cases. Defendant does not object to the cases being 24 consolidated, but has filed a “limited opposition” to state its view that any consolidation should “not 25 prejudice the rights of the parties to request appropriate procedural rulings related to the efficient 26 disposition of the case and any appeals, nor limit the Court’s discretion in considering such requests.” 27 The Court finds that it is appropriate to consolidate these cases, and further finds that consolidation will 28
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
Document 84
Filed 02/02/2009
Page 2 of 2
1
not prejudice the rights of the parties to request appropriate rulings regarding case management.
2
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for consolidation. (Docket No. 71).
3 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 6
Dated: February 2, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
Document 84
Filed 02/02/2009
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9
RAMBUS, INC.
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
12 13
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NOS. 08-3343 AND 08-5500
Plaintiff,
10 11
No. C 08-3343 SI, C 08-5500
v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant.
/
14 Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is scheduled for a hearing on February 6, 2009. Pursuant to 15 Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral 16 argument, and VACATES the hearing. 17 The day after Rambus filed this patent lawsuit, defendant NVIDIA filed an antitrust lawsuit in 18 the Middle District of North Carolina. That lawsuit, NVIDIA Corp. v. Rambus Inc., C 08-5500 SI, 19 which has since been transferred to this District, alleges that Rambus’ procurement and subsequent 20 enforcement of certain patents violates the Sherman Act. The North Carolina court transferred 21 NVIDIA’s antitrust action to this District on the ground that NVIDIA’s antitrust claims properly 22 belonged as counterclaims to Rambus’ patent infringement claims in this case. 23 Plaintiff now moves to consolidate the two cases. Defendant does not object to the cases being 24 consolidated, but has filed a “limited opposition” to state its view that any consolidation should “not 25 prejudice the rights of the parties to request appropriate procedural rulings related to the efficient 26 disposition of the case and any appeals, nor limit the Court’s discretion in considering such requests.” 27 The Court finds that it is appropriate to consolidate these cases, and further finds that consolidation will 28
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
Document 84
Filed 02/02/2009
Page 2 of 2
1
not prejudice the rights of the parties to request appropriate rulings regarding case management.
2
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for consolidation. (Docket No. 71).
3 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 6
Dated: February 2, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
