`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATION ORDER
`
`The passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which clarified the joinder
`
`Defendant.
`
`SABLE NETWORKS, INC., SABLE IP,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`SABLE NETWORKS, INC., SABLE IP,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`SABLE NETWORKS, INC., SABLE IP,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FORTINET, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00109-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00111-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00120-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`EX1050
`Palo Alto Networks v. Sable Networks
`IPR2020-01712
`
`
`
`
`
`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.’ ”).
`
`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 (5:20-cv-00109) 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,
`
`
`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 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of September, 2020.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
