Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`Arpita Bhattacharyya (SBN: 316454)
` arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`*additional attorneys listed in signature block
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`and Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO GROUP LTD., LENOVO
`(UNITED STATES) INC., AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05644-SI
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED
`STATES) INC. AND MOTOROLA
`MOBILITY LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`DATE: August 7, 2020
`TIME: 10:00 a.m.
`JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
`COURTROOM: 1, 17th Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay is Appropriate Given the Early Stage of the Case ............................................ 4
`
`A Stay Will Simplify the Issues for This Court ............................................................ 7
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Neodron or Provide a Tactical Advantage
`to Lenovo and Motorola ................................................................................................ 9
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Silver Springs Networks, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-02176-SK (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017) ..............................................................................6
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`Case No. 14-cv-01012-SI, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015) ............ passim
`
`Chrimar Sys. Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00186-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131681 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) ..........................6
`
`CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,
`300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) .........................................................................................................10
`
`Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-06457-LHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211456 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018) ......................6
`
`DirectPacket Research, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-03918-LHK, Dkt. 233 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2020) ...........................................................6
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) .......................................................................................................................10
`
`ESCO Corp. v. Berkeley Forge & Tool, Inc.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94017 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2009) ..............................................................9
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04204-SI, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9149 .........................................................................9
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Yelp Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03587-DMR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178547 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18,
`2013) ................................................................................................................................................8
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc.,
`No. 4:13-cv-03133-SBA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222339 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28,
`2017) ................................................................................................................................................4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`139 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...........................................................................................5
`
`FormFactor, Inc. v. Micronics Japan Co.,
`No. 6-cv-07159-JSW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13114 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2008) .........................10
`
`Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford,
`334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`HP Inc. et al. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00459, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2020) ...................................................................3, 10
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) .........................................................................................................................4
`
`LELO, Inc. v. Standard Innovation (US) Corp.,
`No. 13-cv-01393-JD, Dkt. 46 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ................................................................6
`
`Lenovo (United States), Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00682, Paper 5 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2020) ....................................................................3, 10
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00682, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2020) ........................................................................3
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00682, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 29, 2020) ...................................................................3, 7
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00688, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2020) ........................................................................3
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00729, Paper 4 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2020) ........................................................................3
`
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00469, Paper 5 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2020) ...................................................................3, 10
`
`MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-03657-SI, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13462 .......................................................................9
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................5, 6, 10
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-02168-EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117147 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011) ........................5
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00192, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2019) ........................................................................3
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00192, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. May 12, 2020) .....................................................................3, 7
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00259, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. May 26, 2020) .........................................................................3
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00282, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2020) .......................................................................3
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Phison Elecs. Corp.,
`538 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (W.D. Wisc. 2008) ......................................................................................10
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc.,
`450 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ...........................................................................................4
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc.,
`771 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 780 F.3d 1134 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) .....................................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Zomm, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`391 F. Supp. 3d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................................................6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .................................................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .........................................................................................................................2, 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1) ..........................................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 7, 2020, by telephonic conference, or soon
`thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Susan Illston, Defendants Lenovo
`(United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”) and Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) (collectively,
`“Defendants”) will and hereby move to stay this matter pending the outcome of petitions for inter
`partes review against several of the asserted patents.1
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF
`Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay this proceeding pending the outcome of
`three petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) filed by Defendants against U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,502,547 (the “’547 patent”), 8,946,574 (the “’574 patent”), and 10,088,960 (the “’960 patent”),
`three of the seven patents asserted in this matter.
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Neodron, Ltd. (“Neodron”) continues to pursue an unwieldy case involving two separate
`defendants and seventy-five claims across seven unrelated patents accusing fifty-seven different
`products of infringement.2 Defendants promptly filed IPR petitions challenging the asserted claims
`of several of those patents. One petition has already been instituted—the petition for the ’547 patent,
`which is the only patent Neodron asserts against Motorola. Two other IPR petitions are pending, and
`the Board’s decisions on whether to institute are expected within the next three months. As this
`Court has previously acknowledged, complex cases involving a substantial number of claims and
`accused products, like this one, are exactly the type that can benefit from a stay pending IPR.
`All factors warrant a stay. First, this case is in its early stages. Discovery has only just begun,
`and there is no schedule set past the Markman hearing date of July 1, 2020. Thus, no trial date has
`been set. Further, the Court’s claim constructions have not been issued yet, no fact depositions have
`even been noticed, and only limited written discovery has been exchanged. Second, the IPRs will
`
`
`1 Counsel for Neodron, Ltd. indicated that it opposes this Motion.
`2 Neodron currently accuses seven Motorola products and fifty Lenovo products of infringement.
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`1
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`streamline the issues in this case. For Motorola, the only patent Neodron asserts has been instituted
`for IPR. Thus, the outcome of that IPR could eliminate the need for trial against Motorola.
`Regarding Lenovo, one of the asserted patents has already been instituted and two petitions are
`pending. If the two pending petitions are instituted, then three of the asserted patents, nearly half of
`this case, could be resolved by the Board. And even if some claims survive a final written decision
`from the Board, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) will serve to narrow the issues for trial before
`this Court. Third, Neodron, a non-practicing entity who does not compete in the marketplace, will
`suffer no competitive harm or undue prejudice from a stay. Courts have consistently held that the
`delay inherent in a stay is alone not undue prejudice. Unless the present case is stayed pending the
`IPRs, the parties and the Court may unnecessarily expend considerable resources on discovery
`related to claims that may ultimately be found unpatentable by the Board. Accordingly, in the
`interests of efficiency, Defendants respectfully request the Court stay this case.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Neodron filed its complaint in this case on September 6, 2019, asserting infringement of
`seven patents:3 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,286 (the “’286 patent”); 8,451,237; 8,502,547 (the “’547
`patent”); 8,946,574 (the “’574 patent”), 9,086,770 (the “’770 patent”); 10,088,960 (the “’960
`patent”); and 7,821,502 (the “’502 patent”). Dkt. 1.
`An initial case management conference took place on December 13, 2019, during which the
`Court entered the current case schedule setting the Markman hearing for July 1, 2020. Dkt. 37. The
`Court has not yet set any discovery deadlines, pre-trial motion or hearing dates, or a trial date.
`On December 27, 2019, Neodron served its infringement contentions accusing Motorola of
`infringing only claim 1 of the ’547 patent and Lenovo of infringing a total of ninety-one4 claims
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`3 This case is one of five patent infringement lawsuits Neodron has filed against Lenovo and
`Motorola in the U.S. In total, Neodron asserts fourteen patents against the Defendants—all targeting
`the touchscreen technology used in the Defendants’ products.
`4 Neodron has since reduced the number of asserted claims to seventy-five. While the parties
`stipulated that Neodron will reduce the number of claims asserted after the Markman hearing, after
`the close of fact discovery, and after the close of expert discovery, this stipulation does not require
`Neodron to reduce the number of patents asserted. Dkt. 70.
`
`
`
`2
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`across the seven asserted patents. Carrano Decl.5 Ex. A (Excerpts from Infringement Contentions
`Against Motorola), Ex. B (Excerpts from Infringement Contentions Against Lenovo). Shortly after
`Neodron served its infringement contentions, the Defendants began filing IPR petitions against
`several of the asserted patents.
`On February 14, 2020 and February 25, 2020, Defendants filed IPR petitions challenging all
`of the initially asserted claims of the ’574 and ’960 patents, respectively.6 Carrano Decl. Ex. C, HP
`Inc. et al. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00459, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2020); Carrano Decl. Ex. D,
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00469, Paper 5 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2020). On
`February 28, Defendants served their invalidity contentions, and one week later on March 6, 2020,
`Defendants filed an IPR petition on the ’547 patent, as well as a motion for joinder with a petition
`Samsung previously filed on the ’547 patent. See Carrano Decl., Ex. E, Lenovo (United States), Inc.
`v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00682, Paper 5 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2020); Carrano Decl., Ex. F, Samsung
`Elecs. Co. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00192, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2019); Carrano Decl.,
`Ex. G, Lenovo, IPR2020-00682, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2020).
`On May 12, 2020, the Board instituted IPR of the ’547 patent, including on claim 1, the only
`claim of the ’547 patent currently casserted in this case. Carrano Decl., Ex. H, Samsung, IPR2020-
`00192, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. May 12, 2020). On June 29, 2020, the Board granted Defendants’ motion
`for joinder. Carrano Decl., Ex. I, Lenovo, IPR2020-00682, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 29, 2020). A
`final written decision on the ’547 patent IPR is expected on or before May 12, 2021.
`With respect to the ’574 and ’960 patents, the petitions are pending institution, and a decision
`regarding institution is expected by mid-September of this year. If the Board grants institution, final
`
`5 Citations to “Carrano Decl.” refer to the Declaration of Aliza George Carrano in Support of
`Defendants Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC’s Motion to Stay Pending Inter
`Partes Review.
`6 Lenovo also filed petitions substantively identical to petitions filed by Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. (“Samsung”) challenging the asserted claims of the ’502 and ’286 patents. Lenovo (United
`States) Inc. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00688, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2020); Lenovo (United
`States) Inc. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00729, Paper 4 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2020). The Samsung
`petitions were recently denied institution. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00282,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2020); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-00259, Paper 8
`(P.T.A.B. May 26, 2020).
`
`
`
`3
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`written decisions addressing the patentability of the challenged claims would be due one year
`following the date of institution, absent good cause for an extension.
`To date, in this proceeding, the parties have served initial disclosures, infringement
`contentions, invalidity contentions, damages contentions, and minimal written discovery. Claim
`construction briefing is complete and the Markman hearing is scheduled for July 1, 2020.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Courts have the inherent authority to stay their proceedings. Rohan ex rel. Gates v.
`Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). This inherent authority is incidental to the
`discretionary power of every court to control its docket in the interests of “economy of time and
`effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Three
`factors are relevant in determining whether to grant a stay: “(1) whether discovery is complete and
`whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of
`the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to
`the non-moving party.” Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal.
`2006).
`
`“[T]here is a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the
`outcome of [Patent Office] proceedings.” Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case No.
`14-cv-01012-SI, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015). This liberal policy
`“stems from recognition that granting a stay can avoid inconsistent results, narrow the issues, obtain
`guidance from the PTO, or simply avoid the needless waste of judicial resources, especially if the
`evidence suggests that the patents-in-suit will not survive reexamination.” Id. (internal quotation
`marks omitted).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A Stay is Appropriate Given the Early Stage of the Case
`A.
`The first factor weighs in favor of a stay because this case is still in its infancy. For this
`factor, courts have looked to “(1) whether parties have engaged in costly expert discovery and
`dispositive motion practice; (2) whether the court has issued its claim construction order; and
`(3) whether the court has set a trial date.” Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-03133-SBA,
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`
`4
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222339, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017) (citing PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v.
`Apple Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1025-26 (N.D. Cal. 2014)). Here, none of these three events have
`occurred. If “substantial work still remains for [the] case to be ready for trial,” this factor weighs in
`favor of a stay. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
`In this case, discovery is in its earliest stages. To date, the parties have exchanged initial
`disclosures; served infringement, invalidity and damages contentions; produced documents (most of
`which were already produced in the related ITC proceeding); and exchanged minimal written
`discovery. Thus, discovery is far from complete. No fact depositions have been noticed let alone
`taken, expert reports have not been served, and no dispositive motions have been filed. Indeed,
`Neodron asserts seven patents related to various aspects of touch technology accusing over fifty
`products of infringement. Neodron accuses of infringement technology found in touch components,
`such as touch sensors and touch controllers supplied by numerous third parties, yet third party
`discovery has not even commenced.
`Other than the Markman hearing, which is scheduled for July 1, 2020, no other dates,
`including a trial date, have been set. That claim construction briefing is complete and the Markman
`hearing is about to occur does not negate the fact that there has been no material progress in the
`litigation. In Symantec, for example, the court found that even though the Markman hearing was
`already conducted, this factor weighed in favor of a stay because, like in this case, no depositions
`have been taken, the parties contemplated additional document production, and the court had “not
`issued its claim construction order or set any deadlines associated with expert discovery, summary
`judgment, pre-trial motions, and trial.” Symantec, 139 F. Supp. 3d at 1035-36. This Court has
`similarly found that “[w]hen, as here, there has been no material progress in the litigation, courts in
`this district strongly favor granting stays pending inter partes review.” Advanced Micro Devices,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496, at *10 (quoting Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-cv-
`02168-EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117147, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011)) (holding this factor
`favored a stay because, “while discovery and claim construction work has occurred, there has been
`no material progress in the litigation” given the parties have not engaged in the “substantial and
`costly work” of expert discovery and filing summary judgment motions).
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`
`5
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`Numerous courts in this district have consistently found a stay appropriate on similar facts.
`See Chrimar Sys. Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., No. 16-cv-00186-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131681,
`at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) (issuing a stay while IPR petitions were pending institution
`where a claim construction hearing had not yet occurred, the parties had conducted limited
`discovery, and the court had not set deadlines for fact or expert discovery or a trial date); Acoustic
`Tech., Inc. v. Silver Springs Networks, Inc., No. 17-cv-02176-SK at 3 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017)
`(issuing a stay while IPR petitions were pending institution where there was some written discovery
`exchanged and claim construction work but there had been no expert discovery, no dispositive
`motions, and no trial date set); LELO, Inc. v. Standard Innovation (US) Corp., No. 13-cv-01393-JD,
`Dkt. 46 at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) (issuing a stay after IPR was instituted where some written
`discovery had occurred but “[m]ost of the hard work on discovery and motions remain[ed] to be
`done” and the trial date was thirteen months away); PersonalWeb Techs., 69 F. Supp. 3d at 1026
`(issuing a stay after IPRs were instituted where a substantial amount of fact discovery was complete
`and the court set an initial trial date and issued a claim construction order, but there was not yet a
`deadline for the end of fact discovery, all expert discovery remained, and the parties had not begun
`preparing dispositive motions); Zomm, LLC v. Apple Inc., 391 F. Supp. 3d 946, 956 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
`(issuing a stay while some IPRs were instituted and another IPR petition was pending institution
`because no expert discovery had been conducted, no substantive motions had been filed, and no trial
`date had been set); DirectPacket Research, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., No. 19-cv-03918-LHK, Dkt. 233 at
`2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2020) (issuing a stay after IPR petitions instituted where the court had not yet
`held a claim construction hearing and the parties had not filed dispositive motions, “both of which
`demonstrate that the case is still in its early stages”); Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., No. 17-cv-
`06457-LHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211456, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018) (issuing a stay after
`IPRs were instituted where “the parties ha[d] not filed dispositive motions or initiated expert
`discovery and the Court ha[d] not held a claim construction hearing, all of which demonstrate that
`the case is still in its beginning stages”).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Accordingly, given that most of the cost and expenses of litigation including fact and expert
`discovery, dispositive motions, pre-trial and trial still lie ahead, this factor strongly weighs in favor
`of a stay.
`A Stay Will Simplify the Issues for This Court
`B.
`This factor supports a stay because the IPRs are highly likely to simplify and eliminate issues
`left to litigate in this case.
`With respect to Motorola, the Board has already instituted IPR against claim 1 of the ’547
`patent, the only patent and claim Neodron asserts against Motorola, finding that the petition
`“demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claim 1 as unpatentable.”
`Carrano Decl., Ex. H, Samsung, IPR2020-00192, Paper 8 at 25; Carrano Decl. Ex. I, Lenovo,
`IPR2020-00682, Paper 10 at 9 (granting institution “for the reasons set forth in the Institution
`Decision in the related IPR”). If the Board issues a final written decision holding that claim 1 of the
`’547 patent is unpatentable, the infringement case against Motorola would become moot. Advanced
`Micro Devices, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496, at *11-12 (quoting Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus
`Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 780 F.3d 1134 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015)) (“the ‘simplification factor weighs more strongly in favor of a stay when all of the
`litigated claims are undergoing [administrative review]’” (alteration in original)). Thus, a stay is
`warranted for Motorola because it will undoubtedly simplify the issues that the parties will have to
`litigate and the fact finder will have to resolve.
`With respect to Lenovo, the IPRs will also substantially simplify the issues in the case.
`Neodron accuses Lenovo of infringing seventy-five claims across seven patents. The asserted claims
`of the challenged ’547, ’574, and ’960 patents make up twenty-eight of those seventy-five asserted
`claims. Neodron’s infringement contentions accuse fifty Lenovo products of infringing the
`challenged claims. Carrano Decl. Ex. A (Excerpts from Infringement Contentions Against
`Motorola), Ex. B (Excerpts from Infringement Contentions Against Lenovo). This is “precisely the
`type of complex infringement lawsuit that stands to benefit from the streamlining effects of IPR.”
`Advanced Micro Devices, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496, at *14.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05644-SI
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 92 Filed 07/01/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`The Board’s institution of the ’547 patent IPR alone would streamline the issues in this case
`by potentially resulting in the cancellation of the ’547 patent. Moreover, the IPR petitions pending
`against the ’574 and ’960 patents would further narrow and simplify this case by cancelling or
`modifying the asserted claims for those patents. Although IPR petitions are not pending for all of the
`asserted patents, that is not necessary to warrant a stay.7 Indeed, courts have continuously
`recognized that “there can still be a simplification of the issues when only some, but not all, of the
`claims asserted in litigation are challenged” at the PTAB. Versata, 771 F.3d at 1372; see also
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Yelp Inc., No. 13-cv-03587-DMR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178547,
`at *16 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) (“Should the PTAB cancel or narrow any of the asserted claims of
`the Asserted Patents, the scope of this litigation may be significantly simplified.”). Final written
`decisions from the Board finding the challenged claims of the ’547, ’574, and ’960 patents
`unpatentable would eliminate nearly half of the asserted patents and over one-third of the currently
`asserted claims.
`Even if the Board holds only a subset of the challenged claims unpatentable, a stay would
`still “avoid duplicative costs and efforts, and avert the possibility of inconsistent judgments.”
`Advanced Micro Devices, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15496, at *14. And the challenged claims that
`survive a final written decision will be subject to estoppel, thereby narrowing the issues before this
`Court since, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Defendants cannot assert invalidity of any claim that
`survives a final written decision on a ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised
`during an IPR. Id. Thus, no matter the result, the IPRs will streamline the invalidity issues in the
`case.
`
`Further, the Court need not wait until the Board determines whether to institute the IPRs
`challenging the ’574 and ’960 patents before granting a motion to stay. First, the Board has already
`granted institution of the ’547 patent, and the period for Neodron to seek reconsideration has passed.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1) (requiring a request for rehearing of an institution decision to be filed
`
`