Samsara Inc

General

Total Cases8

Active Cases3

Patents113

CourtsN.D. California N.D. Georgia D. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/07/24	Motive Technologies Inc v. Samsara Inc 3:24-CV-00902 ( N.D. CA )	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Motion hearing and case-management conference held on 10/31/2024. (jdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/31/2024) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/04/24	Motive Technologies Inc v. Samsara Inc 3:24-CV-00902 ( N.D. CA )	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/31/2024 before Judge James Donato by Motive Technologies, Inc., for Court Reporter Debra Pas. (Bloch, David) (Filed on 11/4/2024) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/01/24	Motive Technologies Inc v. Samsara Inc 3:24-CV-00902 ( N.D. CA )	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/31/2024 before Judge James Donato by Samsara, Inc., for Court Reporter Debra Pas. (Turner, Ellisen) (Filed on 11/1/2024) (Entered: 11/01/2024)
10/15/24	Motive Technologies Inc v. Samsara Inc 3:24-CV-00902 ( N.D. CA )	Plaintiff Motive's Reply in Support of Motion to Lift the Stay and Re-set the Initial Case Management Conference (re [64] MOTION to Lift Stay re 52 Order, Terminate Motions, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, Re-Set the Initial Case Management Conference ) filed by Motive Technologies, Inc.. (Bloch, David) (Filed on 10/15/2024) Modified on 10/15/2024 (anj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2024)
10/08/24	Motive Technologies Inc v. Samsara Inc 3:24-CV-00902 ( N.D. CA )	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [64] MOTION to Lift Stay re 52 Order, Terminate Motions, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, Re-Set the Initial Case Management Conference ) filed bySamsara, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of Ali-Reza Boloori, # [2] Exhibit 1, # [3] Exhibit 2)(Boloori, Ali-Reza) (Filed on 10/8/2024) (Entered: 10/08/2024)
09/30/24	Motive Technologies Inc v. Samsara Inc 3:24-CV-00902 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER by Judge James Donato granting [26] Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2024) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
09/24/24	Motive Technologies Inc v. Samsara Inc 3:24-CV-00902 ( N.D. CA )	MOTION to Lift Stay re 52 Order, Terminate Motions, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, Re-Set the Initial Case Management Conference filed by Motive Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 10/31/2024 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 10/8/2024. Replies due by 10/15/2024. (Attachments: # [1] Proposed Order)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/24/2024) Modified on 9/25/2024 (anj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2024) MOTION to Lift Stay re 52 Order, Terminate Motions, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, Re-Set the Initial Case Management Conference filed by Motive Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 10/31/2024 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 10/8/2024. Replies due by 10/15/2024. (Attachments: # [1] Proposed Order)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/24/2024) Modified on 9/25/2024 (anj, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2024)
09/18/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER. This case was recently transferred to this Court from the District of Delaware. At the time of transfer, an "emergency motion" filed by plaintiff Samsara to enjoin a scheduled arbitration on formation and enforceability grounds had been pending in the transferor court for two months. See Dkt. No. 48. After the transfer, Samsara filed another motion for expedited relief in this Court asking to resolve the injunction request on extremely short notice. Dkt. No. 76.Defendant Motive Technologies stated in a brief filed in Delaware that the arbitration clause in issue delegated "disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope" to an arbitrator. See Dkt. No. 53 at 3. Samsara does not disagree that the delegation clause is as Motive Technologies says, or that Motive agreed to Samsara's terms of service to obtain access to Samsara's products. Parties are perfectly free to delegate formation and enforcement questions to an arbitrator. See Harry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 65 (2019); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995). That is what happened here, and Samsara's contention that the agreement should be unenforceable in light of Motive's conduct is exactly the type of question the parties agreed to delegate to the arbitrator. Samsara's mention of Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 144 S. Ct. 1186 (2024), see Dkt. No. 48 at 3, is of no moment. This case does not involve overlapping and conflicting agreements about who will decide arbitrability, as was the situation in Coinbase. See 144 S. Ct. at 1193-94. Consequently, the Court declines to intervene in the scheduled arbitration. If a fully developed record indicates that the arbitrator acted outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority, Samsara may pursue a remedy, as circumstances warrant. See Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569 (2013). Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/18/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2024) (Entered: 09/18/2024) ORDER. This case was recently transferred to this Court from the District of Delaware. At the time of transfer, an "emergency motion" filed by plaintiff Samsara to enjoin a scheduled arbitration on formation and enforceability grounds had been pending in the transferor court for two months. See Dkt. No. 48. After the transfer, Samsara filed another motion for expedited relief in this Court asking to resolve the injunction request on extremely short notice. Dkt. No. 76.Defendant Motive Technologies stated in a brief filed in Delaware that the arbitration clause in issue delegated "disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope" to an arbitrator. See Dkt. No. 53 at 3. Samsara does not disagree that the delegation clause is as Motive Technologies says, or that Motive agreed to Samsara's terms of service to obtain access to Samsara's products. Parties are perfectly free to delegate formation and enforcement questions to an arbitrator. See Harry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 65 (2019); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995). That is what happened here, and Samsara's contention that the agreement should be unenforceable in light of Motive's conduct is exactly the type of question the parties agreed to delegate to the arbitrator. Samsara's mention of Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 144 S. Ct. 1186 (2024), see Dkt. No. 48 at 3, is of no moment. This case does not involve overlapping and conflicting agreements about who will decide arbitrability, as was the situation in Coinbase. See 144 S. Ct. at 1193-94. Consequently, the Court declines to intervene in the scheduled arbitration. If a fully developed record indicates that the arbitrator acted outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority, Samsara may pursue a remedy, as circumstances warrant. See Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569 (2013). Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/18/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2024) (Entered: 09/18/2024)
09/13/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [76] ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters re [47] Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Defendant Motive Technologies, Inc. from Proceeding with Arbitration ) Opposition to Samsara's Civil L.R. 7-11 Motion for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters filed byMotive Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Proposed Order)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/13/2024) (Entered: 09/13/2024) OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [76] ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters re [47] Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Defendant Motive Technologies, Inc. from Proceeding with Arbitration ) Opposition to Samsara's Civil L.R. 7-11 Motion for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters filed byMotive Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Proposed Order)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/13/2024) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/13/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER by Judge James Donato granting [77] Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Joseph A. Loy. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2024) (Entered: 09/13/2024)