United States District Court, D. Delaware
Richard L. Renck, DUANE MORRIS LLP, Wilmington, DE L. Norwood
Jameson, Matthew C. Gaudet, Alison H. Hutton, DUANE MORRIS
LLP, Atlanta, GA Joseph A. Powers, DUANE MORRIS LLP,
Philadelphia, PA Counsel for ARRIS Group Inc. and Ubee
E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE
Henning Schmidt, Daniel R. Scardino, Drew Zerdecki, Kyle
Harter, REED & SCARDINO LLP, Austin, TX Counsel for
Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC.
STARIK, U.S. District Judge.
Group Inc. ("ARRIS") and Ubee Interactive, Inc.
("Ubee") (collectively, "DJ Plaintiffs")
filed suits against Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
LLC ("MTel" or "Patentee"). DJ Plaintiffs
seek declaratory judgments that neither they nor the
purchasers of their products infringe MTel's United
States Patent Nos. 5, 590, 403; 5, 915, 210; and 5, 659, 891
(collectively, the "patents-in-suit" or
"asserted patents"). (C.A. 16-259 D.I. 1; C.A.
16-260 D.I. 1) (the "Complaints")
the Court are MTel's motions to dismiss DJ
Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1). (C.A. No. 16-259 D.I. 33; C.A. No. 16-260 D.I. 33)
(the "Motions") For the reasons that follow, the
Court will deny MTel's Motions.
cases are two of 14 actions in a multidistrict litigation
centralized in the District of Delaware for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. On January 4, 2016,
Patentee MTel filed seven suits in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the "Eastern
District of Texas"), each alleging infringement of the
three patents-in-suit. The seven actions were consolidated into
one lead case on April 11, 2016. (C.A. No. 16-692 D.I. 30)
April 13, 2016, DJ Plaintiffs ARRIS Group Inc. and Ubee
Interactive, Inc. filed separate actions against MTel in this
Court, each seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement
of the patents-in-suit. (C.A. No. 16-259 D.I. 1; C.A. No.
16-260 D.I. 1) On April 19, 2016, BHN filed a similar
declaratory judgment action in this Court. (C.A. No. 16-277
3, 2016, MTel filed four additional lawsuits in the Eastern
District of Texas against four new defendants, alleging
infringement of the same three patents. Three of these
cases were consolidated into one lead case on July 21, 2016
(C.A. No. 16-700 D.I. 6), and the fourth was added on July
29, 2016 (id. at D.I. 7). (Hereinafter, the Court
refers to the 11 actions filed in the Eastern District of
Texas as the "Texas Actions" and the defendants in
those actions, collectively, as the "Texas
Plaintiffs and the Texas Defendants fall into two general
categories. ARRIS, Ubee, Juniper, Ruckus, Aerohive, Brocade,
HP, Firetide, and Xirrus are Wi-Fi equipment providers. Cox,
BHN, Charter, and TWC are cable network operators.
August 5, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") determined that centralization
of the 14 actions involving MTtel was appropriate, and
transferred the cases to this Court for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. (Case No. 16-md-2722
("MDL") D.I. 1)
patents-in-suit generally relate to wireless
telecommunications. The '403 patent is entitled
"Method and System for Efficiently Providing Two Way
Communication Between a Central Network and Mobile
Unit." The claims of the '403 patent cover methods
for wirelessly ...