Motion to Reassign Case Denied

KEG Techs., Inc. et al. v. Laimer, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-393 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 2008) (Batten, J.)

Defendants sought to reassign this case to Judge Story, who presided over an earlier-filed case (KEG Techs., Inc. et al. v. Laimer, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-253) that involved two of the same patents and three of ten of the same defendants. Defendants relied on Rule 905-2 of the Court’s Internal Operating Procedures which provides that “related” cases must be assigned to the same judge. Specifically, Defendants argued that this case is related to the 2004 case under subsections (2) and (3) of Rule 905-2.

Issue of Fact Must Be Identical – Not Enough to Involve the Same Legal Issue: Subsection (2) of Rule 905-2 provides that cases are related whenever the later-filed case involves “[t]he same issue of fact or arises out of the same event or transaction included in an earlier numbered pending suit.” This subsection is narrowly defined, however, to specify that “a case is NOT related if it has the same LEGAL issue; if any issue of fact is only similar rather than identical; or if the event or transaction is only similar rather than identical.” The Court found that these requirements were not satisfied because this case involves patent infringement allegations relating to several products and against a number of defendants that were not involved in the 2004 case.

Earlier-filed Case Must Be Pending: Subsection (3) of Rule 905-2 provides that cases are related if the later-filed case involves “[t]he validity or infringement of the same patent, copyright, or trademark included in an earlier numbered pending suit.” Here, however, the 2004 case was no longer “pending”; it had been terminated in 2007 after entry of a default judgment. Accordingly, the Court held subsection (3) inapplicable. The Court deemed this a fair result, noting that because Judge Story disposed of the 2004 case early and on procedural grounds, reassigning the case would not promote judicial economy.