`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT, LLC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT, LLC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT, LLC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-cv-475
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-cv-476
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-cv-251
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`On May 31, 2016, Cellular Communications Equipment (“CCE”) filed its Complaint in the
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC and ZTE cases, alleging infringement of, among other patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,941,174
`
`(“the ’174 Patent”). On April 7, 2014, CCE filed its Complaint in the Apple case, also alleging
`
`infringement of the ’174 Patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 1 Filed 03/08/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`On September 23, 2015, the Court stayed all claims and issues pertaining to the ’174 Patent
`
`pending Inter Partes Review in the then-consolidated lead case. No. 6:13-cv-507, Doc. No. 470
`
`(“-507 case”). The PTAB subsequently issued a final written decision holding that Petitioner had
`
`not shown that claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19 of the ’174 Patent were unpatentable. The Court then
`
`dismissed all claims regarding the ’174 Patent against HTC, ZTE, and the Carrier Defendants from
`
`the -507 Case, without prejudice, so that they could be included in newly-filed Civil Action Nos.
`
`6:16-cv-475 and 6:16-cv-476 (the -475 and -476 cases). At the final pretrial conference, the Court
`
`severed the claims regarding the ’174 Patent from the Apple case, and ordered the parties to
`
`continue meeting and conferring about how to move the ’174 Patent claims forward.
`
`Before the Court is CCE’s Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial (“the
`
`Motion”). Doc. No. 382. In the Motion, CCE requests the Court to: open a new civil action for
`
`proceedings against Apple involving the ’174 Patent that were severed from the Apple case;
`
`consolidate that newly-created action with the -475 and -476 cases for pretrial purposes; and set a
`
`scheduling conference for the newly-consolidated action at the same time as the -475 and -476
`
`cases.
`
`The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to open a new cause number for the Apple
`
`proceeding regarding the ’174 Patent. The Court will issue an Order on the remainder of this
`
`Motion after the new case is opened.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of March, 2017.
`
`