`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`HUMANEYES TECHS., LTD.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`HUMANEYES TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY
`AND SET A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Plaintiff HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd.
`
`(“HumanEyes”) hereby respectfully moves that the Court lift the stay that was entered in this
`
`case on May 16, 2012 (D. I. 10) (the “Stay Order”) pending the final determination by the United
`
`States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in the matter of Certain Cameras and Mobile
`
`Devices, Related Software and Firmware, and Components Thereof and Products Containing the
`
`Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-842 (the “Investigation”). HumanEyes also respectfully moves that the
`
`Court set a Rule 16 conference date so that a scheduling order can be entered.
`
`On October 23, 2012, the ITC issued a notice of its determination not to review an initial
`
`determination terminating the Investigation in its entirety. Accordingly, the termination of the
`
`Investigation is final, and there no longer is any basis to maintain the stay. On November 21,
`
`2012, as required by the Stay Order, HumanEyes and Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony
`
`Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB and Sony
`
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (collectively “Sony”) therefore notified the Court of the
`
`C.A. No. 12-398-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY ELECS., INC., SONY CORP., SONY
`CORP. OF AMERICA, SONY MOBILE
`COMMS. AB, SONY MOBILE COMMS.
`(USA), INC.
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 12 Filed 11/29/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 89
`
`ITC’s final termination (D.I. 11), and HumanEyes now requests that the stay be lifted. A stay of
`
`a civil lawsuit based on a proceeding before the ITC should be lifted once the ITC has made a
`
`final determination in the proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). HumanEyes therefore
`
`respectfully requests that the litigation be permitted to proceed.
`
`Although Sony unreasonably seeks to “reset the clock” on the parties’ dispute by refusing
`
`to agree to the cross-use of discovery materials from the ITC Investigation in this matter, fact
`
`discovery is largely complete except for damages discovery. For this reason, HumanEyes
`
`respectfully requests a scheduling conference, as it believes that a shortened discovery period is
`
`appropriate under the circumstances, as is an early date for trial if the Court’s calendar permits.
`
`WHEREFORE, HumanEyes respectfully requests that the stay be lifted and that a Rule
`
`16 conference be scheduled. Sony has informed HumanEyes that it does not oppose lifting the
`
`stay, but does not join in HumanEyes’ other requests.
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`/s/ Tiffany Geyer Lydon
`_________________________________
`Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114)
`Tiffany Geyer Lydon (I.D. #3950)
`Andrew C. Mayo (I.D. #5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, Delaware 19899
`302-654-1888
`sbalick@ashby-geddes.com
`tlydon@ashby-geddes.com
`amayo@ashby-geddes.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Matthew D. Powers
`Steven S. Cherensky
`Paul T. Ehrlich
`Stefani C. Smith
`Robert L. Gerrity
`TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 802-6000
`
`Dated: November 29, 2012
`
`{00694814;v1 }
`
`2
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
