Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 173 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11

12 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK

Northern District of California
United States District Court

SYSTEMS, INC.,
13 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
Plaintiff,
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
14 FOR ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION
v.
15 Re: Dkt. No. 32
AVANCI, LLC, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17

18 On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an anti-suit injunction against Defendants
19 Avanci, LLC, Avanci Platform International Ltd., Nokia Corp., Nokia of America Corp., Nokia
20 Solutions and Networks US LLC, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Technologies Oy,
21 Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL (“Conversant”), Optis UP Holdings, LLC, Optis Cellular
22 Technology, LLC, and Optis Wireless Technology, LLC (collectively, “Original Defendants”).
23 ECF No. 32 (“Mot.”).
24 On July 24, 2019, all Original Defendants except Conversant filed a consolidated
25 opposition. ECF No. 102 (“Opp.”). Plaintiff filed its reply on August 9, 2019. ECF No. 128
26 (“Reply”).
27 On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that added Sharp Corp.
28 1
Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION
 Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 173 Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 3

1 (“Sharp”) as a Defendant. ECF No. 97.

2 On September 6, 2019, Sharp filed a letter that sought a court order to clarify whether

3 Plaintiff’s pending motion for anti-suit injunction can be directed to Sharp. ECF No. 172-1. Sharp

4 argues that Plaintiff’s motion for anti-suit injunction does not apply to Sharp because the deadline

5 to file an opposition brief to Plaintiff’s motion for anti-suit injunction was July 24, 2019, before

6 Sharp was served on July 26, 2019, ECF No. 114, and before Sharp’s counsel entered their

7 appearances on August 16, 2019, ECF Nos. 138, 140.

8 It is unclear whether the motion for anti-suit injunction, and if granted, the anti-suit

9 injunction, extends to Sharp. Plaintiff appears to believe that its motion for anti-suit injunction

10 extends to Sharp. See, e.g., Reply at 2 (stating that Plaintiff wishes to “obtain as expeditious a

11 ruling as possible . . . given the acute risk that Nokia, Sharp, and possibly others will continue to

12 employ abusive tactics in other jurisdictions while this motion remains pending”). However, the
Northern District of California
United States District Court

13 Court’s limited resources would be unduly burdened if the Court were required to resolve an

14 additional motion for anti-suit injunction directed solely at Sharp. In addition, the Court previously

15 ordered Defendants to file a consolidated opposition, ECF No. 76 at 2, so it would be inequitable

16 to allow Sharp to oppose a potential motion for anti-suit injunction directed solely at Sharp even

17 though every other Defendant was ordered to file a consolidated opposition.

18 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s

19 motion for anti-suit injunction. If Plaintiff elects to do so, Plaintiff may refile a motion for anti-suit

20 injunction that includes Sharp. The Court hereby ORDERS all Defendants that wish to file an

21 opposition to Plaintiff’s refiled motion for anti-suit injunction to do so in one consolidated

22 opposition. The page limits set forth in the Civil Local Rules shall govern.

23 The Court also DENIES without prejudice the administrative motions to file documents

24 under seal associated with the briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for anti-suit injunction. See ECF Nos.

25 28, 30, 31, 101, 127.

26 IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

28 2
Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION
 Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 173 Filed 09/10/19 Page 3 of 3

1 Dated: September 10, 2019

3 ______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
4 United States District Judge
5

10

11

12
Northern District of California
United States District Court

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28 3
Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION