Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 38 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NEODRON, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO GROUP, LTD., et al.,
`
`Case No. 19-cv-05644-SI
`
`
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
`MOTION TO STAY
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 26
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Before the Court is a motion by defendants Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”) and
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) to stay pending conclusion of a concurrent ITC investigation.
`
`Dkt. No. 26 (“Motion to Stay”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines the
`
`matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the January 10, 2020
`
`hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`In this case, plaintiff Neodron, Ltd. (“Neodron”) alleges defendants infringe seven patents:
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`United States Patent Nos. 8,102,286; 8,451,237; 8,502,547; 8,946,574; 9,086,770; 10,088,960; and
`
`7,821,502 (collectively, “the asserted patents”). Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1 (“Complaint”). In concurrent
`
`proceedings before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), Neodron asserts four patents, two
`
`of which relate to two of the asserted patents. Motion to Stay at 3-4; Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (“Opp’n”).
`
`All relate to touchscreen technology. Motion to Stay at 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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`26
`
`
`
`In its complaint, Neodron identifies two allegedly infringing products: the Lenovo Yoga 730
`
`27
`
`28
`
`and Motorola Moto G6. Complaint ¶¶ 17, 33. Neodron also identifies these same two products,
`
`and others, as alleging infringing the four patents in the ITC action. Motion to Stay at 5.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 38 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Because of the overlap of accused products and the relatedness of two of the asserted patents,
`
`defendants argue staying this case will promote judicial economy. Motion at 8-11. Defendants also
`
`assert that Neodron, a non-practicing entity, will not be prejudiced by a stay. Id. at 6-7. Defendants
`
`claim to face substantial hardship if a stay is not granted, primarily due to the expenses and
`
`potentially duplicative efforts involved in litigating two cases in two different forums in parallel.
`
`Id. at 7-8; Dkt. No. 34 at 10-11 (“Reply”).
`
`Neodron counters that, because no patents in this case overlap with patents asserted in the
`
`ITC action, a stay will not conserve judicial resources. Dkt. No. 29 at 5-8 (“Opp’n”). Moreover,
`
`Neodron argues any potential hardship facing defendants in conducting duplicative litigation efforts
`
`can be ameliorated by an agreement allowing the cross-use of discovery in the two matters. Id. at
`
`7. Neodron notes that, in the ITC matter, (i) fact discovery ended, (ii) a claim construction order
`
`issued on November 25, 2019, (iii) an evidentiary hearing is set for March 23, 2020, (iv) the deadline
`
`for the Initial Determination is June 26, 2020, and (v) the target date for completion of the
`
`investigation is October 26, 2020. Opp’n at 3; see also Reply at Ex. B (ITC schedule). Neodron
`
`also argues that it will be unduly prejudiced, because a stay risks the loss of evidence and jeopardizes
`
`the availability of witnesses. Opp’n at 8-9. Defendants argue that the early timing of their stay
`
`request avoids prejudicing Neodron. Reply at 11-12.
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to
`
`control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
`
`counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In evaluating the
`
`propriety of a stay, the Court should consider “the possible damage which may result from the
`
`granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,
`
`and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,
`
`proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300
`
`F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55).
`
`
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 38 Filed 12/19/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Considering the parties’ arguments and the posture of this case, the Court finds a stay is not
`
`warranted at this juncture. The ITC investigation is nearly complete, with many issues already
`
`decided. Indeed, discovery in the ITC matter ended, and the parties’ proposed schedule provides
`
`time after claim construction for additional discovery. As such, a stay will not greatly simplify the
`
`issues. Although defendants may face hardship in conducting duplicative discovery, a cross-use
`
`agreement could serve as a remedy.
`
`The Court is not unsympathetic to defendants’ desire to avoid litigating on multiple fronts
`
`simultaneously. As such, the Court ENTERS the parties’ jointly proposed case schedule (Dkt. Nos.
`
`31-1, 37) and encourages the parties to negotiate an agreement to share discovery across all cases.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Under these circumstances, the Court finds a stay will not promote judicial economy, and
`
`therefore DENIES defendants’ motion for a stay.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 19, 2019
`
`______________________________________
`
`SUSAN ILLSTON
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`