Keezio Group v. SlumberPod, LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SLUMBERPOD, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEEZIO GROUP,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-06288-PHK
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE
GRANTING MOTION TO REALIGN
THE PARTIES FOR TRIAL
Re: Dkt. 175
INTRODUCTION
Keezio was the party which initiated this lawsuit and was the named plaintiff during the
pretrial stages of the case. SlumberPod asserted counterclaims against Keezio. As a result of pretrial
rulings in this case, the only causes of action remaining for trial are SlumberPod’s patent
counterclaims against Keezio. As part of the pretrial preparation process, on August 3 and 4, 2026,
the Parties filed briefs setting forth their positions on whether the parties should be realigned for
purposes of presentation at trial. [Dkts. 158-159]. The Parties requested the Court resolve this issue
in their Pretrial Readiness Statements filed on August 19, 2026. [Dkts. 170-171].
On August 29, 2026, the Court issued a Text Order GRANTING SlumberPod’s motion to
realign the Parties to reflect the fact that only SlumberPod's counterclaims remain for trial. [Dkt.
175]. In that Text Order, the Court noted that “[a] more detailed Order will issue in due course.”
Id. Accordingly, the Court thus issues the present Order to provide a more thorough explanation
and analysis of its decision to realign the Parties.
DISCUSSION
In a typical patent case, a patentee sues an alleged infringer, and the patentee is therefore the
Case 3:23-cv-06288-PHK Document 241 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
plaintiff. But where a patentee alleges infringement without filing suit, the accused party may in
some instances initiate a declaratory action to clarify its legal rights. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co. v. Releasomers, Inc., 824 F.2d 953, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In that instance, the alleged infringer
is the plaintiff instead of the patentee. This case started in that fashion: after SlumberPod accused
Keezio’s product of infringing the asserted patents, Keezio filed suit seeking “a judicial declaration
as to the parties’ rights and obligations relative to the conflicting claims asserted in this action[.]”
[Dkt. 1 at 14]. With Keezio’s Plaintiff status comes the presumptive ability to proceed first at trial.
See Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. 03-CV-01431, 2006 WL 1646110,
at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2006) (“Fresenius is the plaintiff and is entitled to proceed first in all
phases of the case.”). Because SlumberPod wants to proceed first at trial, it has sought a ruling from
this Court to realign the Parties so that SlumberPod will become named Plaintiff and original
Plaintiff Keezio will become named Defendant.
“Realignment of the parties is within the Court’s discretion.” MySpace, Inc. v. Graphon
Corp., 732 F. Supp. 2d 915, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (first citing Fresenius, 2006 WL 1646110, at *1;
further citing Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, No. 02-CV-5693, 2003 WL 25841157, at *5
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2003)). The Court exercises that discretion to realign the parties for the reasons
discussed herein.
First, the Court’s priority at trial is to ensure the clearest possible presentation of the issues
in this case to the jury. “[R]ealignment will make the burdens and the evidence in a factually
complex case simpler for the jury to follow. It will be easier for a jury to understand this as an
infringement case with an invalidity defense than as an invalidity case with infringement
counterclaims.” BioNTech SE v. CureVac SE, No. 2:23-CV-222, 2025 WL 77391, at *2 (E.D. Va.
Jan. 10, 2025). 	Courts have recognized “the common-sense rule that where a plaintiff seeks
declaratory relief that it is not liable and the defendant counterclaims that plaintiff is liable, it is
more logical to realign the parties so that the defendant becomes the plaintiff.” Kerr Corp. v. N.
Am. Dental Wholesalers, Inc., 2011 WL 4965111, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) (emphasis in
original); see also Allegro Ventures, Inc. v. Almquist, 2013 WL 3864329, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 24,
2013). For that reason, both the Federal Judicial Center and the former Chief Judge of the Federal
Case 3:23-cv-06288-PHK Document 241 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Circuit have suggested that patentees should proceed first at trial, even in declaratory judgment
actions initiated by alleged infringers. See Peter S. Menell, et al., Patent Case Management Judicial
Guide 	(3d 	Ed. 	2016) 	at 	§ 8.1.2.2.2.1 	p. 	8-14, 	available 	at
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/PCMJG3d_2016_final.pdf; Howard T. Markey, On
Simplifying Patent Trials, 116 F.R.D. 369, 373 n.7, 378 (1987).
Second, because Keezio no longer asserts any affirmative claims for relief against
SlumberPod, the “primary purpose” of this litigation is to adjudicate SlumberPod’s patent claims,
and SlumberPod is the “natural plaintiff” as the Party that bears the burden of proof on those claims
at trial. Plumtree, 2003 WL 25841157, at * 3–4. 	That Keezio bears the burden of proof on its
invalidity claim—which is typically asserted as a defense to infringement, see 35 U.S.C. § 282, and
would likely be mooted by a finding of noninfringement, see Benitec Austl., Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc.,
495 F.3d 1340, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2007)—does not alter the analysis, see Plumtree, 2003 WL
25841157, at *3.
Keezio’s 	reliance 	on 	Fresenius 	Medical 	is 	not 	persuasive 	because 	that 	case 	is
distinguishable. See Dkt. 158 at 2 (citing Fresenius Med., 2006 WL 1646110, at *1). In Fresenius,
the Court had already issued a summary judgment ruling finding infringement of claims of two of
the asserted patents. For that reason, the Fresenius holding relied on the fact that, given the status
of those parties in light of the pretrial infringement ruling, invalidity of the patent claims was the
“heart” of the case. 	Id. at *2. 	Here, unlike in Fresenius¸ there is no pretrial summary judgment
ruling of infringement. Accordingly, the factors that led to the denial of realignment in Fresenius
are lacking here.
Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed herein, and in the full exercise of the Court’s
discretion under all applicable legal principles, SlumberPod’s motion to realign the parties is
GRANTED. 	The Court ORDERS that the Parties SHALL be realigned for trial, so that
SlumberPod proceeds named as Plaintiff at trial on its patent assertion causes of action, and Keezio
proceeds named as Defendant at trial. 	See Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Ltd. v. Force MOS
Tech. Co., Ltd., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2026 WL 2161197, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2026) (granting
motion to realign Parties "to ensure the clearest possible presentation of the issues in this case to the
Case 3:23-cv-06288-PHK Document 241 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
jury").
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
PETER H. KANG
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-06288-PHK Document 241 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 4