`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-1214
`
`
`
`
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SILICON LABORATORIES INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`SILICON LABORATORIES INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRETRIAL CONSOLIDATION
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Ocean Fails to Meet Its Threshold Burden Showing Common Questions .......................... 2
`
`B. The Relevant Factors Weigh Against Consolidation ........................................................... 5
`
` Pretrial consolidation will lead to confusion ................................................................... 5
`
` The Defendants will be prejudiced by consolidation ....................................................... 7
`
` There is little or no risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual or legal
`questions if the actions are not consolidated. .................................................................. 8
`
` Consolidation will not significantly reduce the time/cost of these cases. ........................ 9
`
` The remaining factors are neutral or weigh against consolidation ............................... 10
`
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arnold & Co., LLC v. David K. Young Consulting, LLC,
`No. No. SA-13-CV-00146-DAE, 2013 WL 1411773 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2013) ..................2, 5
`
`Cont’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Platzer,
`304 F. Supp. 228 (S.D. Tex. 1969) ............................................................................................2
`
`DAC Surgical Partners P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc.,
`No. 4:11-cv-1355-MFH, 2013 WL 3229686 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2013)...................................9
`
`Dryshod Int’l, LLC v. Haas Outdoors, Inc.,
`No. 1:18-CV-596-RP, 2019 WL 5149860 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2019) ......................................8
`
`Frazier v. Garrison ISD,
`980 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Goodridge v. Hewlett-Packard,
`No. H-07-4162, 2008 WL 11389213 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 2008)...........................................3, 7
`
`Neutron Depot, LLC v. Bankrate, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-192, 2016 WL 3536721 (S.D. Tex. June 29, 2016).............................................10
`
`PB&J Software v. Acronis, Inc.,
`No. 4:12-cv-690, 2012 WL 4815132, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2012) ..................................8, 9
`
`Peters v. Woodbury County, Iowa,
`291 F.R.D. 316 (W.D. Iowa 2013) ....................................................................................6, 7, 8
`
`Pfeffer v. HAS Retail, Inc
`No. SA-11-cv-959-XR, 2012 WL 394645, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2012) .....................5, 6, 8
`
`Raymond v. Ivest Props.,
`No. SA-20-CV-00965-FB, 2021 WL 725819 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2021) ................................8
`
`St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of New Orleans, Inc.,
`712 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1983) .....................................................................................................7
`
`YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Drinkware, LLC,
`No. 1:16-CV-909-RP, 2017 WL 5505325 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2017) ......................2, 3, 4, 8, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 4 of 14
`
`Defendant Silicon Laboratories Inc. (“Silicon Labs” or “Defendant”) opposes Ocean
`
`Semiconductor LLC’s (“Ocean” or “Plaintiff”) Motion for Pre-Trial Consolidation (“Ocean’s
`
`Motion”) (Dkt. 21 (hereinafter, “Mot.”)) of seven cases (Case Nos. 6:20-1210, 6:20-1211, 6:20-
`
`1212, 6:20-1213, 6:20-1214, 6:20-1215, and 6:20-1216) against disparate defendants (MediaTek
`
`Inc., NVIDIA Corp., NXP USA,
`
`Inc., Renasas Electronics Corp., Silicon Labs,
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc., and Western Digital Technologies, Inc., collectively “Defendants”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Ocean’s Motion ignores substantial prejudice to Silicon Labs that would result from
`
`consolidation. Ocean’s Motion seeks to hinder Silicon Labs’ ability to present relevant defenses
`
`by, for example, forcing Defendants to present joint defenses and arguments, limiting access to
`
`relevant witnesses, and restricting the pages available for dispositive briefing. While Ocean
`
`contends that it will be prejudiced absent consolidation, Ocean chose to pursue seven
`
`considerably different actions, and Ocean should not now be heard to argue it is prejudiced
`
`without consolidation. Ocean knew the burdens of initiating multiple suits, and Ocean—not
`
`Silicon Labs—must properly bear any consequence of Ocean’s decision.
`
`Consolidating these seven separate actions, even for pretrial purposes, is unnecessary and
`
`impractical for several reasons. First, Ocean over-simplifies the details relevant to each action in
`
`a failed effort to establish sufficient common questions of law and fact. The reality is that these
`
`actions accuse seven different Defendants of infringing various combinations of ten different
`
`patents through importation of hundreds of distinct products manufactured by, at least, three
`
`foundry partners using multiple facilities with disparate tools. As such, the outcome of each case
`
`will be determined by the unique facts specific to each Defendant and its products.
`
`Second, even if some common questions exist, the Court should exercise its discretion
`
`and deny Ocean’s Motion because, among other relevant factors, consolidation unnecessarily
`
`- 1 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 5 of 14
`
`complicates discovery, causes confusion with witnesses and ultimately a jury, and prejudices the
`
`Defendants. Given the stage and location of these cases, there is little risk of inconsistent results
`
`and minimal, if any, efficiency to be realized from consolidation.
`
`For these, and other factors described below, Ocean’s Motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Ocean first fails to meet the “threshold requirement” showing that the seven cases
`
`involve a “common question of law or fact” sufficient to necessitate consolidation. YETI
`
`Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Drinkware, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-909-RP, 2017 WL 5505325, at *2 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Jan. 18, 2017). Second, even where actions involve some overlap, “the mere presence of a
`
`common question does not require consolidation” but must be balanced against “inconvenience,
`
`delay and confusion that might result.” Cont’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Platzer, 304 F. Supp. 228,
`
`229–30 (S.D. Tex. 1969). In balancing whether consolidation is warranted, “courts consider
`
`factors such as whether the actions are pending before the same court; whether the actions
`
`involve a common party; any risk of prejudice or confusion from consolidation; the risk of
`
`inconsistent adjudications of common factual or legal questions if the matters are tried
`
`separately; whether consolidation will reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately;
`
`and whether the cases are at the same stage of preparation for trial.” Arnold & Co., LLC v. David
`
`K. Young Consulting, LLC, No. SA-13-CV-00146-DAE, 2013 WL 1411773, at *2 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Apr. 8, 2013). Here, these factors weigh against consolidation. Ocean bears a threshold burden of
`
`establishing common questions, and that consolidation is warranted; Ocean fails on both counts.
`
`A.
`
`Ocean Fails to Meet Its Threshold Burden Showing Common Questions
`
`Ocean’s Motion does not directly address its threshold requirement to show that the
`
`seven cases involve common questions of law or fact (YETI, 2017 WL 5505325, at *2), and
`
`instead infers that common questions of law and fact exist based solely on superficial
`
`- 2 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 6 of 14
`
`descriptions of the allegations in each case. Mot at 1–2. Ocean points only to surface
`
`commonalities—one common foundry partner (of three named) using some common tools (four
`
`among six named) infringe some common patents (seven of ten asserted)—and ignores the
`
`distinct factual details in each case. For example, Ocean alleges that each Defendant’s accused
`
`products were manufactured by a combination of foundry partners and certain Defendants’ own
`
`fabrication facilities. Id. at 2. Ocean also alleges that the foundries use different accused tools to
`
`manufacture the accused products—camLine’s LineWorks, Applied Materials’ SmartFactory, or
`
`both. Id. at 1–2. While other tools are accused in each case, no two cases have complete overlap
`
`between foundries and accused tools, as shown in the table below:
`
`Foundry
`Accused Tool TSMC TSMC/Self TSMC/UMC TSMC/UMC/Self TSMC/Kioxa/Self
`STMicro
`SiLabs Renesas
`camLine
`NXP
`SmartFactory
`Both
`
`MediaTek
`NVIDIA
`
`Western Digital
`
`
`
`Tool
`
`As a matter of law, this is insufficient to meet the required threshold for consolidation.
`
`See Goodridge v. Hewlett-Packard, Co., No. H-07-4162, 2008 WL 11389213, at *3 (S.D. Tex.
`
`June 25, 2008) (acknowledging the actions arise out of the same context, but finding insufficient
`
`common questions of fact to consolidate as each will involve a separate and distinct fact inquiry).
`
`In YETI, the court denied a motion to consolidate even though the lawsuits were between
`
`the same parties, asserted “similar sets of claims,” and were governed by the same law. YETI,
`
`2017 WL 5505325, at *1. RTIC sought to consolidate several of the actions relating to coolers,
`
`cups, and bottle products, arguing common questions of law existed because of the nearly
`
`identical set of claims for the different products. Id. at *2. RTIC even identified a number of
`
`factual inquiries it believed were common to all cases, including, for example, “the functional
`
`and generic nature of the parties’ products.” Id. In denying, the YETI court reasoned that, even
`
`though the cases shared common themes and context, and raised similar factual and legal issues,
`
`- 3 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 7 of 14
`
`“the questions arising in each case are not the same and necessarily can be resolved differently
`
`for each category of products.” Id. The court was “not persuaded that these cases entail common
`
`issues simply because they involve the same types of claims and the products at issue happen to
`
`be manufactured by the same companies.” Id. In other words, an analysis of the similar series of
`
`claims had to be done product by product for each case. Thus, the court held that RTIC failed to
`
`meet the threshold burden for consolidation. Id.
`
`The reasoning in YETI applies with greater force in this case, which involves multiple
`
`unrelated parties. Ocean’s Motion, like in YETI, merely identifies shared common themes and
`
`context, such as similar conclusory allegations arising from some commonly asserted patents,
`
`some commonly accused fabrication tools, and one common foundry partner. Mot. at 1–2. This
`
`partial overlap is not sufficient to meet Ocean’s threshold burden of demonstrating common
`
`questions of law and fact warranting consolidation. Just as in YETI, here Ocean’s separate
`
`infringement allegations depend on material facts unique to each individually filed case. Ocean’s
`
`Motion presupposes foundries use the same tools and facilities for all seven Defendants, but
`
`there is no reason to believe that is true. For example, TSMC, which Ocean identified as a
`
`foundry partner for each Defendant, is a massive corporation with numerous facilities worldwide
`
`that operates 18 different fabrication facilities. Ex. 1. TSMC’s different facilities have differing
`
`processing capabilities, use different tools and methods for fabricating products, and different
`
`products are fabricated at different locations. See Dkt. 17 at 2, n.2. Given this, it is highly
`
`unlikely that the TSMC-related facts will overlap for all Defendants, as Ocean alleges, and
`
`Ocean has provided no reason why this must be so. As such, even for the common patents, a
`
`finding of infringement related to one Defendant’s products will have little bearing on whether
`
`any other Defendant’s products are manufactured in the same manner.
`
`- 4 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 8 of 14
`
`Further, merely asserting the same cause of action, i.e., infringement of some of the same
`
`patents, is insufficient—otherwise, this Court would consolidate far more cases. In Pfeffer v.
`
`HAS Retail, Inc., Pfeffer filed nine lawsuits against nine defendants alleging the same violation
`
`of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”) and then moved for consolidation of the nine
`
`actions. No. SA-11-cv-959-XR, 2012 WL 394645, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2012). The court
`
`denied consolidation “[b]ecause all nine cases involve different defendants and independent fact
`
`scenarios, the risks of consolidation outweigh any potential benefits.” Id. The court elaborated
`
`that, other than the same legal claim being alleged, the nine actions are unrelated because “each
`
`case involves a different defendant, each of which is a different corporate entity,” and Pfeffer
`
`“does not allege that any of the defendants acted in concert with one another or that any of the
`
`defendants were even aware of one another’s activities.” Id. The court found the risk of
`
`confusion and prejudice to be too high for consolidation. Id. at *2. Here, similar to Pfeffer, each
`
`case involves a different Defendant and each case involves different fact scenarios—i.e.,
`
`disparate products, fab facilities, and tools. For these reasons, Ocean’s Motion fails to
`
`demonstrate sufficient common questions of law and fact, and it should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`The Relevant Factors Weigh Against Consolidation
`
`Of course, as noted above, the mere presence of a common question of law or fact does
`
`not require consolidation. Even if this threshold inquiry is met (which it is not), courts must
`
`weigh additional factors when exercising discretion to consolidate. Arnold, 2013 WL 1411773,
`
`at *2. Analysis of these additional factors confirms the cases at issue should not be consolidated.
`
`
`
`Pretrial consolidation will lead to confusion
`
`Consolidating these cases, even for pretrial purposes only, will likely result in significant
`
`confusion for all involved. Ocean declares in a conclusory fashion that there will be no risk of
`
`confusion because of “the substantial overlap between the asserted patents, accused foundry
`
`- 5 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 9 of 14
`
`partners, and accused manufacturing tools.” Mot. at 4. Ocean’s position either ignores or
`
`significantly simplifies reality. In fact, even while presenting an overly simplified version of
`
`seven unique cases, Ocean’s Motion seeks to leave the door open for adding non-accused
`
`foundry partners and tools. Mot. at n.1 and n.2; see also Dkt. 14 at 9-12.
`
`Consolidation will unnecessarily complicate discovery. For example, as discussed in
`
`Section II.A above, TSMC alone operates numerous facilities that fabricate different ones of the
`
`hundreds of accused products. Given the idiosyncrasies of each location, consolidation would
`
`greatly complicate fact and expert witness deposition preparation and could potentially lead to
`
`confused or muddled deposition testimony that would not assist a jury. For example, it may be
`
`easy for a deponent to mistake one record related to one facility or Defendant for another. Rather
`
`than unnecessarily complicating discovery in these ways, these cases should remain separate.
`
`Courts have found the risk of confusion significant when denying consolidation in similar
`
`situations. As discussed in Section II.A above, the Pfeffer court denied consolidation of nine
`
`cases involving violations of the EFTA and elaborated that: “Since the cases consist of different
`
`defendants and independent fact scenarios, the potential risks and burdens of consolidation
`
`outweigh any potential benefits. The risk of prejudice to the defendants and juror confusion at
`
`trial are sizeable.” Pfeffer, 2012 WL 394645, at *2. Similar to Pfeffer, each of the seven cases at
`
`issue here involves a different defendant and independent fact scenarios. As such, the risk of
`
`confusion for witnesses that translates into confusion for the jury is palpable, and the benefits of
`
`consolidation are slim. See, e.g., Peters v. Woodbury County, Iowa, 291 F.R.D. 316, 320 (W.D.
`
`Iowa 2013) (denying consolidation because it “would create complexities resulting in the
`
`imposition of burdens on the court and the parties. For each exhibit offered, and each witness
`
`examined, issues would arise as to whether the evidence applies to the Clay case, the Peters case
`
`- 6 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 10 of 14
`
`or both”). For these reasons, the likelihood of confusion and error is simply too great to warrant
`
`consolidation, even for pretrial purposes. As such, this factor weighs against consolidation.
`
`
`
`The Defendants will be prejudiced by consolidation
`
`Ocean declares in conclusory fashion that there “is no risk of prejudice or confusion if the
`
`actions are consolidated.” Mot. at 1. As discussed above, consolidating even for pretrial purposes
`
`would likely confuse witnesses, risking prejudice to the Defendants. See Peters, 291 F.R.D. at
`
`320 (“The potential confusion creates a serious risk of prejudice to the defendants.”). And,
`
`Silicon Labs will be prejudiced by limits on its ability to independently present its own defense.
`
`For example, during the meet and confer process, Ocean contended that its Motion
`
`contemplates combined summary judgment briefing at some page limit less than what would be
`
`allowed in the seven individual cases it chose to file. Undoubtedly, such a limitation substantially
`
`prejudices Defendants given their independent defenses and unique factual scenarios.
`
`Further, Western Digital’s two IPRs are a concrete example of the Defendants’ divergent
`
`interests that would lead to prejudice against Silicon Labs. In both IPR petitions, Western Digital
`
`agrees that if the PTAB institutes its IPRs, Western Digital will not “pursue invalidity on the
`
`same grounds in district court.” Ex. 2, IPR No. IPR2021-00864, Paper 1 at 6; Ex. 3, IPR No.
`
`IPR2021-00929, Paper 1 at 7. But Silicon Labs—who has not filed IPRs and is not a real party in
`
`interest to Western Digital’s IPRs—is not bound by that stipulation. Therefore, Silicon Labs can
`
`raise those invalidity grounds regardless of whether the PTAB institutes. Forcing all Defendants
`
`to pursue a common invalidity strategy is prejudicial.
`
`It is well-settled that “[c]onsolidation is improper if it would prejudice the rights of the
`
`parties.” St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 978,
`
`989 (5th Cir. 1983); Goodridge, 2008 WL 11389213 at *1. Ocean is the party that filed seven
`
`suits against different entities, each entitled to pursue its own independent defense. Ocean’s
`
`- 7 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 11 of 14
`
`request for consolidation appears to be nothing more than an attempt to hamstring the
`
`Defendants, forcing them to speak with one voice, even where the issues important to each
`
`Defendant may differ substantially. Thus, this factor weighs strongly against consolidation.
`
`
`
`There is little or no risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual
`or legal questions if the actions are not consolidated.
`
`Ocean alleges that separate actions pose “significant risks” of conflicting results, and
`
`Ocean curiously suggests that filing Defendant-specific motions to dismiss using Defendant-
`
`specific reasoning is an example that “could easily lead this Court to making inconsistent
`
`decisions.” Mot. at 5–6. That position simply makes no sense, as the outcome of each action
`
`must depend on the facts material to the specific case. See YETI, 2017 WL 5505325, at *3
`
`(“[T]here is no reason why each case must reach the same conclusions.”); Peters, 291 F.R.D. at
`
`321 (“[I]t is entirely possible that one plaintiff may prevail and the other may not . . . There
`
`would be nothing inherently inconsistent in such an outcome.”).1
`
`“A mere contention that failure to consolidate cases might lead to inconsistent decisions
`
`is insufficient justification for a court to consolidate an action.” Pfeffer, 2012 WL 394645, at *1
`
`(citing Frazier v. Garrison ISD, 980 F.2d 1514, 1532 (5th Cir. 1993)). Indeed, in PB&J
`
`Software, LLC v. Acronis, Inc., the court denied consolidation where “three judges presiding over
`
`the four cases may easily be made aware of relevant prior rulings, and they may choose to accept
`
`or reject prior rulings as they see fit. The same is true for other motions, dispositive or
`
`otherwise.” No. 4:12-cv-690, 2012 WL 4815132, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2012). The situation
`
`
`1 Ocean’s reliance on Dryshod Int’l, LLC v. Haas Outdoors, Inc., is misplaced. Mot. at 5.
`Dryshod is not analogous to the present facts as it involved two mirror-image trademark and
`copyright infringement/non-infringement suits with identical parties. No. 1:18-CV-596-RP, 2019
`WL 5149860, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2019). Similarly, Ocean’s reliance on Raymond v. Ivest
`Props., is not helpful. Mot. at 6. In Raymond, the second case was intended to be filed as an
`amended complaint in the first, and thus consolidation was appropriate. No. SA-20-CV-00965-
`FB, 2021 WL 725819, at *2–3 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2021).
`
`- 8 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 12 of 14
`
`here is simpler than in PB&J Software: the Court will be aware of its prior rulings in the related
`
`causes of action. As such, the risk of inconsistent results is nonexistent and this factor does not
`
`weigh in favor of consolidation.
`
`
`
`Consolidation will not significantly reduce the time/cost of these cases.
`
`Ocean contends that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency through consolidated
`
`discovery (Mot. at 6–7), but ignores the impact of consolidation on other aspects of the case. For
`
`example, any time savings by a single deposition to cover a witness’ background information
`
`only once is far outweighed by the likely confusion and inadvertent mistakes that would be made
`
`by the witness and the attorneys during a marathon deposition discussing the manufacturing
`
`processes involved for hundreds of different products for seven separate Defendants. And, while
`
`some witnesses may overlap, there is no question that many witnesses are unique to each action,
`
`such as staff and employees of both Defendants and individual foundry locations with their
`
`particular knowledge regarding the manufacturing processes and tools used at separate facilities.
`
`Ocean, in support of its position, relies on DAC Surgical Partners P.A. v. United
`
`Healthcare Servs., Inc., in which the defendants, common to two cases, sought consolidation
`
`when the plaintiffs asserted “virtually identical allegations and causes of action . . . the only
`
`meaningful difference is the names of the plaintiffs.” No. 4:11-cv-1355-MFH, 2013 WL
`
`3229686 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2013). As discussed above, the accusations in the current cases are
`
`not so straightforward. Here, Ocean proposes consolidating seven individual actions that include
`
`unique parties, only one common foundry partner, and only some common patents and tools.
`
`Consolidation will not significantly reduce the time and cost necessary to complete
`
`discovery or try these cases. Rather, consolidating these cases is likely to make them more
`
`complex. In denying consolidation in YETI, the court explained that consolidation “would lead to
`
`one significantly more complex case, rather than three relatively simple ones.” 2017 WL
`
`- 9 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 13 of 14
`
`5505325, at *3. That is precisely the scenario Ocean is advocating here, which will make the
`
`current proceedings more complex and potentially unmanageable.
`
`Finally, consolidation is not the only avenue available to the parties to avoid duplicative
`
`discovery and reduce pretrial costs where appropriate. Ocean’s analysis ignores this Court’s
`
`usual practice of coordinating related cases—i.e., setting them on the same schedule and for a
`
`single Markman hearing, which Silicon Labs would not oppose. This practice results in much of
`
`the streamlining and efficiencies that Ocean incorrectly contends requires formal consolidation.
`
`Additionally, where appropriate, Silicon Labs would consider sharing documents across cases,
`
`making appropriate stipulations, abiding by common protective orders, and other reasonable
`
`accommodations to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of resources responding to redundant
`
`discovery requests. As such, this factor either weighs against consolidation or is at best neutral.
`
`
`
`The remaining factors are neutral or weigh against consolidation
`
`Ocean incorrectly argues that its decision to file seven cases in the same court at the same
`
`time favors consolidation. Mot. at 4. But, such a filing strategy is common, and does not weigh
`
`heavily in favor of consolidation. Neutron Depot, LLC v. Bankrate, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-192, 2016
`
`WL 3536721, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 29, 2016). And even though Ocean is a common party,
`
`because the Defendants are all different entities, this factor weighs against consolidation or is
`
`neutral. Id.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`As explained above, Ocean fails to meet its threshold burden of demonstrating that these
`
`seven cases have common questions of law and fact. The material facts needed to resolve each
`
`case, such as the specific methods and tools used in manufacturing, are unquestionably unique to
`
`each case. Further, even if there were sufficient common questions of fact and law, the relevant
`
`factors strongly weigh against consolidation. Ocean’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`- 10 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01214-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/04/21 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`June 4, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Marc B. Collier
`
`Marc B. Collier (SBN 00792418)
`marc.collier@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Eric C. Green (SBN 24069824)
`eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Catherine Garza (SBN 24073318)
`Cat.garza@nortonrosefulbright.com
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 474-5201
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Richard S. Zembek (SBN 00797726)
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Darren Smith (SBN 24088433)
`Darren.smith@nortonrosefulbright.com
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010-3095
`Tel: (713) 651-5151
`Fax: (713) 651-5246
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SILICON
`LABORATORIES INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on June 4, 2021, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of
`
`Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of
`
`record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Eric C. Green
`
`Eric C. Green
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2033
`
`