`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-2353-N
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`This Order addresses Plaintiff MobileMedia Ideas LLC’s (“MMI”) motion to sever
`
`or stay [369] and Defendants Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion
`
`Corporation (collectively, “RIM”) motion to exceed the summary judgment page limit [401].
`
`The Court denies MMI’s motion and grants RIM’s motion.
`
`This case initially involved sixteen of MMI’s patents. The Court has previously
`
`stayed MMI’s claims based on six of those patents because MMI’s claims were referable to
`
`arbitration. MMI has now apparently agreed to dismiss claims regarding two of the
`
`remaining ten patents with prejudice. See Def.’s Opposed Mot. Exceed Summ. J. Page Limit
`
`1 n.1. Of the eight remaining patents, MMI seeks to stay or sever claims regarding some of
`
`ORDER – PAGE 1
`
`
`
`Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 402 Filed 08/16/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 8664
`
`the remaining patents1 to pare the case down for remaining discovery and for trial. The Court
`
`denies MMI’s requested relief.
`
`The Court will grant MMI only one trial on the remaining eight patents. While the
`
`Court is sympathetic to MMI’s desire to narrow the issues for trial, MMI was master of its
`
`complaint and chose which patents to assert. The Court recognizes that a trial including all
`
`eight patents places burdens on both parties’ counsel to make the case comprehensible to a
`
`jury, but this is a burden MMI placed on itself by alleging infringement of fifteen different
`
`patents in one suit.2 Further, the Court has allotted two weeks for the trial, enough time to
`
`assert all eight patents if MMI chooses to do so. Finally, MMI has not indicated why – other
`
`than concerns about jury confusion – some patents should be tried first and others tried later.
`
`To that end, the Court is generally uncomfortable with allowing MMI to pick and choose
`
`patents to try in the December trial, while maintaining its claims on the remaining patents
`
`should the December trial yield an unfavorable result. Thus, although the Court acts within
`
`its discretion in severing or staying the patent claims, the Court elects not to do so.
`
`The Court still encourages MMI to narrow the patents and claims for trial. The Court
`
`directs MMI to inform RIM and the Court on or before August 27, 2013 which patents MMI
`
`intends to assert. The Court will dismiss with prejudice any claims based on any patents not
`
`1MMI’s initial motion requested a stay or severance of five patents. MMI files this
`motion before it apparently agreed to dismiss two of the patents. The Court assumes that
`MMI now seeks to stay or sever claims regarding three of the eight remaining patents.
`
`2RIM is apparently comfortable with such a burden by failing to agree to narrow the
`scope of the litigation further.
`
`ORDER – PAGE 2
`
`
`
`Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 402 Filed 08/16/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 8665
`
`asserted or previously stayed. The Court also grants RIM’s motion to exceed the summary
`
`judgment page limit and grants RIM leave to file an 80-page summary judgment brief.
`
`Should MMI narrow its asserted patents, however, the Court grants RIM leave to file only
`
`10 pages of briefing per patent asserted. MMI may file a response of equal length. The
`
`Court also allows RIM’s requested 35 page summary judgment reply.
`
`Signed August 16, 2013.
`
`_________________________________
`David C. Godbey
`United States District Judge
`
`ORDER – PAGE 3
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
