T-Mobile files motion to dismiss the case. Will not post the whole filing, too long, but table of contents gives jist of arguments. Daic et al actions have now put the T-Mobile lasuit in jeopardy.
===============================================
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
CALYPSO WIRELESS, INC. & DRAGO DAIC,
Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Case No. 2:08-CV-441-TJW-CE
Jury Trial Demanded
DEFENDANT T-MOBILE USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Case 2:08-cv-00441-TJW-CE Document 109 Filed 02/03/2010 Page 1 of 35
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Plaintiffs Have Engaged in a Long-Running Dispute Including Prior Litigations Over Ownership and Control of the Patent-in-Suit...............................3
1. Prior State Court Litigation Between Plaintiffs and Others Regarding the Patent-in-Suit
2. The 2008 Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs Granted Daic and Williamson an Ownership Interest in the Patent-in-Suit
B. Calypso Filed this Action Knowing It Did Not Have Standing to Sue for Infringement of the Patent-in-Suit
C. Calypso and Daic’s Failure to Correct Standing
1. The First Amended Complaint Still Did Not Join All of the Patent Owners as Plaintiffs
2. The 2009 Agreements Among Plaintiffs and Others Regarding Patent Ownership
D. Plaintiffs’ Continuing Patent Ownership Dispute
1. The Alleged Ownership by the Non-Party Trustee and Daic’s Motion to Substitute and Plan to Auction the Patent-in-Suit
2. Calypso’s Recent Motions and State Court Suit and Alleged Ownership by Non-Party Williamson
III. THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
A. Plaintiffs Still Lack Standing to Sue for Patent Infringement
1. Calypso Lacked Standing When It Brought Suit
2. Plaintiffs Failed to Correct the Standing Problem with the Amended Complaint
3. Even with the Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint, Plaintiffs Currently Lack Standing
B. Calypso’s Cross-Claims and Third-Party Claims Should Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. The State-Law Claims Do Not Form Part of the Same Case or Controversy with Plaintiffs’ Infringement Case Against T-Mobile and Therefore Should Be Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
2. Even if the State-Law Claims Did Form Part of the Same Case or Controversy with the Patent Infringement Case, this Court Should Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction.
a) The Novel and Complex State Law Issues Warrant Denial of Supplemental Jurisdiction
b) Because the Ownership Dispute Predominates Over the Patent Infringement Allegations, Supplemental Jurisdiction Should Be Denied
c) Original Jurisdiction Is Lacking and Therefore Supplemental Jurisdiction Should Be Denied
d) This Court Should Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction in Favor of Duplicative Proceedings Already Proceeding in State Court
C. Calypso’s Cross-Claims and Third-Party Claims Should Be Dismissed as Defective
IV. THE CASE AGAINST T-MOBILE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
V. ALTERNATIVELY, THIS ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED UNTIL PLAINTIFFS CAN DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE
