vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-cv-2624
`HON. ALFRED H. BENETT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and Local Rule 7.5, Plaintiff GUI Global
`
`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 7
`
` 
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.
`D/B/A GWEE
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Products, Ltd. d/b/a Gwee (“Gwee” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (together, “Samsung”) respectfully move the Court to
`
`consolidate Gui Global Products, Ltd. d/b/a Gwee v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., Civil Action
`
`No. 4:20-cv-2624 (S.D. Tex.), currently pending before Judge Bennett, with Gui Global Products,
`
`Ltd. d/b/a Gwee v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-2652 (S.D. Tex.), currently pending before
`
`Judge Hanks, for pretrial purposes.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On July 27, 2020, Gwee filed suit for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co.
`
`Ltd.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC;1 and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in
`
`the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. The next day, July 28, Gwee filed suit
`
`                                                            
`1 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, has since been dismissed and the caption ordered
`amended by Oral Order of the Court on October 16, 2020.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1102
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 7
`
` 
`
`against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for patent infringement, also in the Houston Division of the Southern
`
`District of Texas. Gwee asserts that both cases involve similar facts and similar questions of law.
`
`Samsung asserts that at least the facts specific to Apple and Samsung will be different, but believes
`
`there would still be efficiencies in consolidation. Both cases were brought for patent infringement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and both seek judgments of infringement and injunctive relief. In both
`
`cases, Gwee alleges infringement of the same four patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,589,320;
`
`10,562,077; 10,259,021; and 10,259,020. While joinder of Samsung and Apple (together,
`
`“Defendants”) for trial is not permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 299(b), consolidation for purposes of
`
`common discovery by the Defendants from Gwee and for claim construction will benefit the
`
`parties and will permit the Courts to avoid potentially inconsistent claim construction or validity
`
`rulings. See, e.g., Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Canrig Drilling Tech., Ltd., 2015 WL 12780793, at *4 (W.D.
`
`Tex., May 22, 2015) (holding that 35 U.S.C. § 299 does not bar consolidation for pre-trial matters,
`
`and collecting cases). Further, consolidating both cases for pretrial purposes promotes and
`
`advances judicial economy.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
`
`If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the
`court may:
`
`
`(1)
`(2)
`(3)
`
`join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
`consolidate the actions; or
`issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
`
`The Fifth Circuit has noted that “Rule 42(a) should be used to . . . eliminate unnecessary repetition
`
`and confusion.” Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv., 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984). This case is ripe
`
`for pre-trial consolidation given the common patents-in-suit to be construed, potential validity
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 7
`
` 
`
`issues to be decided, and the common disclosures and discovery Gwee will provide to Samsung
`
`and Apple.
`
`Consolidation would permit a single judge of this District, rather than two, to become
`
`familiar with the patents-in-suit while avoiding potentially inconsistent decisions on, for example,
`
`claim construction, validity and priority dates for the patents-in-suit. Efficiency would also be
`
`furthered by coordinated discovery by Defendants from Gwee on issues common to both
`
`Defendants. Further, judicial efficiency will be advanced by having one court rule on common
`
`discovery issues, claim construction, validity and priority dates. No party would be prejudiced by
`
`pretrial consolidation, and both cases are in their infancy. In Samsung, Judge Bennett held a
`
`scheduling conference on October 16 and entered a scheduling order the same day. Dkt. No. 38.
`
`In Apple, the parties appeared before Judge Hanks on October 19 and a schedule for discovery and
`
`briefing of Apple’s motion to transfer will be set shortly per Judge Hank’s instructions. Further,
`
`Samsung has represented that it too will seek transfer, and Gwee will presumably seek a similar
`
`period of venue discovery once Samsung files its venue motion. The cases should synchronize
`
`easily once the venue issues are decided. Regardless, it is Gwee’s position that while the Apple
`
`case may lag behind the Samsung case by a matter of weeks, the scheduling order entered in the
`
`Samsung case was designed to provide some time for the Apple motion to transfer venue to be
`
`decided such that the two cases could proceed together. While Apple intends to file a motion to
`
`stay discovery in the Apple case, Gwee intends to press its position to Judge Hanks that discovery
`
`in the Apple case does not and should not be stayed pending the Court’s determination of the
`
`motion to transfer venue such that both cases can proceed with discovery including mandatory
`
`infringement, validity and claim construction disclosures under the patent rules of the Southern
`
`District of Texas, and the two cases can and should be consolidated for discovery and other pretrial
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 7
`
` 
`
`purposes. Samsung believes that the transfer issues should be determined first, then the schedule
`
`should be re-evaluated for both cases after that determination (if needed).
`
`Gwee and Samsung take no position as to which court should preside over the two cases
`
`if this Motion to Consolidate is granted and leave that issue to the respective courts to decide.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Gwee and Samsung respectfully requests entry of the attached proposed order
`
`consolidating the two above-captioned cases for pretrial purposes.
`
`
`Dated: October 23, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`
`
` /s/ John J.
` Edmonds
`John J. Edmonds
`Texas Bar No. 789758
`Federal I.D. No. 22110
`Stephen F. Schlather
`Texas Bar No. 24007993
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, Texas 77003
`Telephone: (713) 364-5291
`Facsimile: (713) 222-6651
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`Barrett H. Reasoner
`Texas Bar No. 16641980
`Federal ID No. 14922
`breasoner@gibbsbruns.com
`Mark A. Giugliano
`Texas Bar No. 24012702
`Federal ID No. 29171
`mgiugliano@gibbsbruns.com
`Michael R. Absmeier
`Texas Bar No. 24050195
`Federal ID No. 608947
`mabsmeier@gibbsbruns.com
`Jorge M. Gutierrez
`Texas Bar No. 24106037
`Federal ID No. 3157999
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 7
`
`jgutierrez@gibbsbruns.com
`GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP
`1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 650-8805
`
`Alistair B. Dawson
`Texas Bar No. Bar No. 05596100
`Federal Bar I.D. 12864
`adawson@beckredden.com
`Michael E. Richardson
`Texas Bar No. Bar No. 24002838
`Federal Bar I.D. 23630
`mrichardson@beckredden.com
`Garrett S. Brawley
`Texas Bar No. 24095812
`Federal Bar I.D. 3311277
`gbrawley@beckredden.com
`Patrick Redmon
`Texas Bar I.D. 24110258
`Federal Bar I.D. 3367321
`predmon@beckredden.com
`BECK REDDEN LLP
`1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500
`Houston, Texas 77010-2010
`Telephone: (713) 951-3700
`Facsimile: (713) 951-3720
`
`Butch Boyd
`Texas Bar No. 00783694
`Federal Bar I.D. 23211
`butchboyd@butchboydlawfirm.com
`BUTCH BOYD LAW FIRM
`2905 Sackett Street
`Houston, TX 77098
`Telephone: (713) 589-8477
`Facsimile: (713) 589-8563
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GUI
`GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`/s/ Jin-suk Park (with permission)
`Jin-Suk Park
`Attorney-in-Charge
`DC Bar No. 484378
`jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`Paul Margulies
`DC Bar No. 1000297
`paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE
`SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202.942.5000
`Fax: 202.942.5999
`
`Christopher M. Odell
`Texas Bar No. 24037205
`Christopher.odell@arnoldporter.co
`m
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE
`SCHOLER LLP
`700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, TX 77002-2755
`Tel: 713.576.2400
`Fax: 713.576.2499
`
`John H. Barr, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 00783605
`S.D. Tex. Fed. ID. No. 15407
`jbarr@pattersonsheridan.com
`PATTERSON & SHERIDAN LLP
`24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
`Houston, TX 77046
`Tel: 713.577.4821
`Fax: 713.623.4846
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 7
`
` 
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system, including
`per Local Rule CV-5.1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Patrick Redmon
`
`Patrick Redmon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that I have conferred with counsel for Defendants Samsung concerning the
`
`relief requested in this motion. Defendant Samsung joins in the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alistair B. Dawson
`Alistair B. Dawson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-cv-2624
`HON. ALFRED H. BENETT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Having considered the Joint Motion to Consolidate filed by Plaintiff GUI Global Products,
`
`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 39-1 Filed on 10/23/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.
`D/B/A GWEE
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Ltd. d/b/a Gwee (“Gwee” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (together, “Samsung”), the motion is hereby GRANTED.
`
`Civil Actions Nos. 4:20-cv-2624 and 4:20-cv-2652 are hereby ORDERED consolidated for pre-
`
`trial purposes under Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-26___ currently pending before the Hon. Judge
`
`____________________________.
`
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________
`Date
`
` 
`
`_____________________________________
`The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett
`United States District Judge
`
`8
`
`