Datatreasury Corporation v. Small Value Payments Company - 35

Datatreasury Corporation v. Small Value Payments Company Doc. 35 Case 2:04-cv-00085-DF Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOIIRT FORTHE EASTERNDISTRICTOF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURYCORP, PLAINTTFF VS. SMALL VALUE PAYMENTSCO. (SVPCo) DEFENDANT No.: 2-04-CV- (DF/CC) 85 JURY DEMAND DATATREASURY MOTION CONSOLIDA,TE TO CORPORATION'S CLA,IM CONSTRUGTION PENDING ACTION PROCEEDINGS OTHER WITH Plaintiff DataTreasury ("DataTreasury") Corporation bringsthis Motion to Consolidate Claim Construction Proceedings OtherPending with Action, andwouldrespectfully showthis Courtasfollows: I. INTRODUCTION This Court is very familiar with the DataTreasury patentlitigation, having entertained approxrmatelydozencases For a involvingthepatents ownedby DataTreasury. example, this Court is the only Court in the United Statesthat has issueda MarlcrnanOrder construingthe (the '137 patent). claim terms of U.S. Patents5,910,988 (the '988 patent)and 6,032,137 Moreover,this Court has overseen resolutionof several the DataTreasury of cases, and the has entered Consent Judgments reciting findingsthat the '988 and '137 patentsare valid, enforceable infringed. and Cunently, there axetwo sepa.rate casesfiled by DataTreasuryand pending before this Court that are each in a very similar stageof the litigation through claim construction Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:04-cv-00085-DF Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 2 of 6 proceedings.Thesetwo separate similar actionsare: DataTreasury but Corporationvs. Small Value PaymentsCompany (SVPCo),Cause No. 2:04CV85; ard DataTreasury Corporation MagTek, f/k/a Mag-Te#, vs. Inc 12c., Cause No.2:03CY459(collectively refened to as the "Two SubjectCases"herein). DataTreasury respectfullyrequests Court to the consolidate Two Subject the hearing ifone is required Cases ajoint claim construction for by the Court. The Two Subject of already track for purposes claim construction briefing. Cases The respective scheduling ordersfor eachcaseareprovidedat Exh. A andB. It would be in the interestofjudicial economy havethe claim construction proceedings eachof the to for Two SubjectCases proceed fully in a consolidated fashion. DataTreasury doesnot suggest consolidation thesecasesfor discovery, of trial, or any other proceedings other than for a claim construction argrunents support hearing(if required the Court). DataTreasury's by for of this positionaresetforth below. II, ARGUMENT This Court has inherentauthorityto controlits docketand consolidate in similar issues separate pending cases.,See Fed.R. Civ. Pro. 42(a).t In fact,this Courthasexperience doing exactly what DataTreasury requesting. In July 2004, the Court held a consolidated is Marknmnhearingin the following cxes: DataTreasury Corporationvs.JP Morgan Chase & Company, Cause No. 5:02CY124; DataTreasury Corporationvs.Ingenico,SA,et al, Cawe No.5:02CV95;andDataTreasury Corporationvs.First Data Corporation, al, Cause et No. 5:03CV39.The Courtconsolidated for thosethreecases all ofthe claimconstruction briefins FederalRule of Civil Procedure42(a) states:"When actions involving a common questionof law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matterc at issue in the actions; rt may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecassary costsor delay." It is beyond disputethat common questionsoflaw and fact are pending before the Court in the Two Subj ect Cases,t}us the Court has the power to grant the relief requested herein. Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate- SVPCo Page2 t Case 2:04-cv-00085-DF Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 3 of 6 and for the claim constructionhearing itself, but not for any other purpose.' This consolidation allowedthe Courtto hold only onehearing, issueonly oneMarlvnanOrder and addressing ofthe termsproposed construction. all for DataTreasury contends consolidation the Two Subject would serve same the that of Cases judicial purposesof this Court's previous Marlonan consolidation;it would conserve resources, yet still allow for all partiesto havetheir arguments and conceming claim term definitions briefed,argued, decided.TheTwo Subject and are Cases still inthe infancyof the claim construction proceedings stage. For example, Two SubjectCases approaching the are the followingdeadlines : l. DataTreasury MagTek, v. No.2:03CV459: Cause Patentee files Opening Claim ConstructionBrief on Claim Constructionissues I/31/06 Accused Inliinger filesResponsive ClaimConshuction Brief on ClaimConstruction issues Patentee ReplyBrief files 2. DataTreasury SVPCo, v. Cause No.2:04CV85: Patentee Opening frles ClaimConstruction Brief on ClaimConstruction issues Accused InfringerfilesResponsive ClaimConstruction Brief on ClaimConstruction issues Patentee ReolvBrief files 2^4/06 2/2r/06 1/31,/06 2t74/06 2/21/06 Because same the rationale the Court'sprevious for consolidation existsin these Two Subject DataTreasury respectfully requests the Courtconsolidate Two Subject that the Cases, Casesfor Claim Construction Proceedings has as only. DataTreasury attached Exh. C a t The IP Morgan casesettledapproximatelyone year later, and the Ingenico casesettledin November 2005. The First Data caseis set for trial in July ofthis year. Plaintiff s Motion to Consolidate- S\?Co Page3 Case 2:04-cv-00085-DF Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 4 of 6 proposedOrder which sets forth consolidated, identicaldeadlines claim construction for eventswhich could be enteredin both of the Two SubjectCases. Thesenew deadlines as exactlytrack the separate deadlines exist in eachof the Two SubjectCases set forth that above. ilI. CONCLUSION premises respectfully requests that this Court WHEREFORE, considered, DataTreasury grantthis Motion to Consolidate with Action, ClaimConstruction Proceedings OtherPending ald consolidate claim construction the proceedings only, andno otherproceedings, both for of the Two Subject Cases by entering the proposedOrder attachedas Exhibit C. praysfor any further relief to which it may be entitled. DataTreasury Respectfully Submitted, /sl EDWARDL. HoHN Texas BarNo.09813240 edhohn@nixlawfirm.com D. NEI SMITH Texas No. 00797450 Bar dnsmith@nixlawfi rm.com NIX, PATTERSoN& RoAcH, LLP 205LindaDrive Daingerfield, Texas75638 903.645.'7333 Telephone: Facsimile: 903.645.44),5 C. CARY PAfiERSoN Texas No. 15587000 Bar ANTHoNY K. BRUSTER Texas No. 24036280 Bar akbruster@rixlav,Iirm. com Nrx, PATTERSoN & RoAcH, LLP 2900St.MichaelDrive, Suite500 Texarkana, Texas75503 Telephone: 903.223.3999 Facsimile 903.223.8520 : PlaintiffsMotionto ConsolidateS\fPCo Page4 Case 2:04-cv-00085-DF Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 5 of 6 JOEKENDALL Texas No. 11260'700 Bar ikendall@,provostumohrev.com KARL RUPP Texas No. 24035243 Bar laupp@.orovostumohrey.com PRovosr UMPHREL LLP 3232McKinneyAvenue,Suite700 Dallas,Texas75204 4.3000 Telephone: 4.7'7 21 Facsimile:214.744.3015 RoDCooPER Texas BarNo.90001628 rcoooer@coopEliplatdlglq THE CooPER LAw FrRM Fwy. Ste1460 545E. JohnCarpenter Irving, Texas75062 Telephone: 972.831.1 188 Facsimile: 972.692.5445 ERrc ALBNTToN M. Texas No.00790215 Bar ema@emafirm.com ALBRITToN LAw FIRM P. O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas75606 Telephone: ;757.8449 903 Facsimile: 903.7 58.'7397 T. JoHN WARD, JR. Texas No. 00794818 Bar iw@jwfirm.com LAw OFFrcEs oF T, JoHN WARD JR P. O. Box 1231 75606 Longview,Texas Telephone: 903.7 57.6400 Facsimile:903.7 -23?3 57 ATTORNEYS F'ORPLAINTIFF DATATREASURY CORP. Plaintiffs Motionto ConsolidateSVPCo Page5 Case 2:04-cv-00085-DF Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF CONF'ERENCE I hereby certify that Plaintiffs counselhas conferredwith Defendant's counsel regarding aboveMotion to Consolidate, they indicated the the and that they oppose filing of suchMotion. /sl & NIX, PATTERSON ROACH,LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document served the 25" dayof January, was on 2006. Preston McGee SULLTVAN& CR oMwELL pmcqee@tvlemet.com cartefi@sullcrom.com williamsj @sullcrom.com iaanqi@sullcrom.com rclayton@fchs.com sbelisle@fchs.com James Carter James Williams JaneJaang Ftrzparnrcr CrLLAHARPER ScrNTo & RonaldClagon S.Belisle /sl NIX, PATTERSON ROACH,LLP & Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate - SVPCo Page 6