The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the phrase "same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences" to require a degree of factual commonality underlying the claims. 20(a)(2)(A) as requiring "the existence of a right to relief predicated upon or arising out of a single transaction or occurrence or series thereof" and finding that "llegations of infringement against two unrelated parties based on different acts do not arise from the same transaction"). Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 564 F. at *4 see also Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. Transactional relatedness is a fact-specific inquiry that examines whether the claims for relief arise from "related activities." Id.
In this case, Interval cannot meet at least the first part of Rule 20(a)(2), requiring "transactional relatedness" of its claims for relief. "Thus, Rule 20 permits the joinder of multiple defendants only if two requirements are satisfied: transactional relatedness and commonality." Bravado Int'l Grp. There is no basis to assume any relation or common transaction or occurrence as between any of Google's products or services and any of any other defendant's products or services.įed. 12(b)(6) based in part on the failure of the Complaint to identify with any particularity what products or services offered by Google allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit. Joinder is appropriate only if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.Ĭoncurrent with this motion, Google has filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines who may be permissively joined as defendants. Plaintiff's Attempted Joinder of Google with Unrelated Defendants Ignores the Law Likewise, because many of the defendants are competitors and offer distinct products, technology, and services, Interval cannot allege that its claims against them arise out of "the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences."1 III. Interval does not and cannot allege that any of the named defendants are jointly or severally liable, conspired with each other, or acted in concert in any way. and infringement of the '682 patent by Facebook, Inc. 1.) By the same Complaint, Interval also alleged infringement of all four patents-in-suit by AOL, Inc., Apple, Inc., and Yahoo! Inc infringement of the '507 and '682 patents by eBay, Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., OfficeMax, Inc., and Staples, Inc.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 27, 2010, Interval filed its Complaint alleging infringement of U.S. AND YOUTUBE, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR SEVER FOR MISJOINDER PURSUANT TO FED.
Google should be dropped from the instant action, or the claims against it should be severed, because there is no allegation of, or any factual basis forĭEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC. INTRODUCTION Interval Licensing LLC ("Interval") has ignored the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit law by attempting to improperly join eleven disparate and unrelated entities in a single action for patent infringement without alleging any coordinated action between them or any right to relief that arises out of "the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." Fed. and YouTube, LLC (together, "Google"), through their undersigned counsel, respectfully move this Court to dismiss or sever them from the above-captioned action for misjoinder.
20 AND 21 Note on Motion Calendar: November 5, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE INTERVAL LICENSING LLC, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:10-cv-01385-MJP DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.