October 4, 2012 – On September 18th, Golden Bridge Technology filed six suits against severed defendants from a case originally filed May 8, 2012 in the Central District of California against 15 mobile device manufacturers (Amazon, Apple, Barnes & Noble, Dell, HTC, HP, Lenovo, LG, Motorola Mobility, Pantech, RIM, Samsung, Sierra Wireless, Sony, and ZTE).  In the complaint, Golden Bridge alleged that the defendants’ mobile devices configured to operate on 3G networks infringed US Patent No. 6,075,793.  Golden Bridge argued in its original complaint that joinder of all defendants was proper because “each of the Defendants’ accused products and methods use one of two common baseband processors designed and manufactured by Intel (formerly Infineon Corporation) and Qualcomm to practice the claimed inventions.”  After some initial filings, four defendants (Motorola Mobility, Amazon, Dell, and Apple) filed motions to sever and transfer before the CDCA Court.  These filings prompted Judge Otis D. Wright II to issue an order dated September 11, granting these motions for severance and a sua sponte order to sever all the remaining defendants from the case.  In reaching this decision, Judge Wright stated, “[the] Court finds no evidence that Defendants have any relationship relating to the accused products or infringement of the ’793 patent.  Defendants are unrelated competitors that design, manufacture, and sell smartphones and other data communication devices. . . . the fact that they may use an identical baseband processor – a fact disputed by Defendants – by itself does not establish that joinder is proper.”  The remaining defendants in the venues that the “Defendants have indicated . . . they believe are the proper (and most convenient) venues for their respective cases.  If [Golden Bridge] decides to refile here, it must file notices of related cases . . . However, as is hopefully clear, the Court is included to grant motions to transfer to ensure the most convenient venue for the litigants.”  Prior to this lawsuit, Golden Bridge’s 17 other litigations against a largely duplicative list of Defendants alleging infringement of other mobile related patents (6,574,267; 6,075,793) that relate to both 3G and 4G technologies.  Per its website, Golden Bridge is an entity that was “formed in 1995 by a consortium of telecommunication technology investors, scientists, and intellectual property attorneys.  Golden Bridge’s primary business is the creation, licensing, and enforcement of Wideband CDMA technology and intellectual property.”  5/12, Central District of California, assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright II and referred to Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm, 2:2012cv04014.