Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 2871
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
` )
`
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-116-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING OUTCOME OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`jying@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Heidi Keefe
`Phillip Morton
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5000
`
`Phillip E. Morton
`Emily E. Terrell
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 842-7800
`
`Michael G. Rhodes
`COOLEY LLP
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
`
`August 16, 2017
`11245539
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2872
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS AND STATEMENT OF
`RELEVANT FACTS ......................................................................................................... 1 
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 3 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 4 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4 
`Facebook’s Petitions Will Simplify the Issues For Trial and May Dispose
`A. 
`of the Need for Trial Entirely ................................................................................. 5 
`Fact Discovery, Expert Discovery, Dispositive Motions, and all Pretrial
`Proceedings Remain Outstanding .......................................................................... 6 
`No Undue Prejudice or Tactical Disadvantage Exists ........................................... 7 
`1. 
`Facebook acted diligently in requesting IPR and moving for a stay ......... 7 
`2. 
`Institution decisions are imminent ............................................................. 8 
`3. 
`Sound View does not compete with Facebook .......................................... 8 
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 9 
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 2873
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. Cooler Master Co., Ltd.,
`No. 13-cv-00457-JST, 2014 WL 1350813 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014) ........................................8
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................5
`
`Benefit Funding Sys. LLC v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Ctrs. Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................9
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-1107(GMS), 2014 WL 1369721 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014) .................................. 5, 7-9
`
`Boston Sci. Corp, v. Cordis Corp.,
`777 F. Supp. 2d 783 (D. Del. 2011) ...........................................................................................7
`
`CallWave Commc’ns, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`Civ. No. 12-1701-RGA, 2015 WL 1284203 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2015)...............................4, 6, 9
`
`Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................3
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1173 (2016) ......................................3
`
`Miics & Partners Am. Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`No. 14-803-RGA, 2015 WL 9854845 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2015) ............................................ 8-9
`
`Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co.,
`830 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`Case No. 2:13-CV-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) ................... 5-8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................................6
`
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. C-12-3970 RMW, 2013 WL 5225522 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) .....................................5
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-04275 (C.D. Cal.)......................................................................................3, 9
`
`Vehicle IP LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`Civ. No. 10-503-SLR, 2010 WL 4823393 (D. Del. Nov. 22, 2010) .........................................4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 2874
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc.,
`771 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................6
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................6
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.Com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................................... 5-6, 8
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review
`Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Review
`Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680-01, 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.100 et seq.) .......................................................................................................................4
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 ...................................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ...........................................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .......................................................................................................................5
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 2875
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC began this case with seven patents. The Court has
`
`already invalidated two of the seven: one at the pleading stage and one during claim
`
`construction. Defendant Facebook, Inc. has filed IPR petitions which stand to invalidate the
`
`remainder. All three factors considered by this Court favor granting a stay pending final decision
`
`on Facebook’s petition.
`
`First, Facebook’s IPRs have the potential to be entirely case dispositive, which is the
`
`ultimate simplification of issues. Even assuming that some of Sound View’s claims ultimately
`
`were to survive IPR, the PTAB proceedings will necessarily simplify the case, clarify the scope
`
`of those remaining claims, and streamline any trial in this action.
`
`Second, a stay of this action during the IPR proceedings has the potential to save
`
`considerable expenditure of Court and party time and resources. Fact discovery will need to
`
`reopen in view of the Court’s recent ruling on Sound View’s motion for reconsideration relating
`
`to the ’786 patent. Expert reports and depositions, dispositive motions, and all other remaining
`
`pretrial and trial proceedings also loom ahead.
`
`Finally, the requested stay presents no undue prejudice to Sound View. Facebook
`
`diligently pursued its IPR petitions in this complex case and files this stay motion to ensure that
`
`it will be available for consideration soon after the PTAB issues its institution decisions. The
`
`parties are not competitors and Sound View is not harmed by Facebook’s continued presence in
`
`the market.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`Sound View filed this case on February 29, 2016, alleging infringement of seven patents
`
`relating to a wide variety of technologies: U.S Patent Nos. 5,991,845 (the “’845 patent”),
`
`6,125,371 (the “’371 patent”), 6,732,181 (the “’181 patent”) 7,366,786 (the “’786 patent”),
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 2876
`
`7,412,486 (the “’486 patent”), 8,095,593 (the “’593 patent”), and 8,135,860 (the “’860 patent”).
`
`In response, Facebook filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the ’593 patent for failure to claim
`
`eligible subject matter under § 101. The Court granted Facebook’s motion on August 30, 2016
`
`and found the asserted claims of the ’593 patent invalid. (D.I. 47.)
`
`Facebook spent the next several months seeking discovery from Sound View regarding
`
`its positions on infringement and invalidity, including Sound View’s contended conception and
`
`reduction to practice dates. Sound View delayed, resulting in a discovery dispute conference on
`
`January 9, 2017. (See D.I. 72.) Despite Sound View’s failure to promptly provide its conception
`
`and reduction to practice dates, Facebook filed its IPR petitions, challenging every asserted claim
`
`of the patents-in-suit that remained in the case at that time:
`
`Patent-In-Suit
`
`IPR Case No.
`
`Filing Date Accorded
`
`’371 patent
`
`’845 patent
`
`’486 patent
`
`’486 patent
`
`’860 patent
`
`’786 patent
`
`’860 patent
`
`’181 patent
`
`IPR2017-00985
`
`February 28, 2017
`
`IPR2017-00986
`
`February 28, 2017
`
`IPR2017-00998
`
`March 1, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01002
`
`March 1, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01003
`
`March 1, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01004
`
`March 1, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01005
`
`March 1, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01006
`
`March 1, 2017
`
`
`Facebook expects institution decisions on all but one of its petitions by no later than September
`
`6, 2017. The remaining decision is expected no later than September 10, 2017.
`
`On March 29, 2017, the Court held a Markman hearing on the six patents remaining in
`
`the case and issued its memorandum opinion on May 19, 2017. (D.I. 100.) In its opinion, the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 2877
`
`Court found the single asserted claim of the ’486 patent to be indefinite. (See D.I. 100 at 20-24.)1
`
`The Court also held that the only asserted independent claim of the ’786 patent is invalid,
`
`but recently granted Sound View’s motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 162.) Facebook respectfully
`
`submits that the Court’s new construction was in error and will shortly seek reconsideration of
`
`that order.2 Nonetheless, the current reversal will require a reopening of discovery to account for
`
`the ’786 patent. The parties are negotiating parameters on taking discovery related to this patent,
`
`which may require an extension of the case schedule.
`
`The remaining case schedule promises a great deal of further work. The entirety of expert
`
`discovery, including expert reports, depositions, Daubert motions, and dispositive motions
`
`remains outstanding, including summary judgment motions on subject matter ineligibility under
`
`35 U.S.C. 1013 and non-infringement. (See D.I. 21 at 6-7, D.I. 115). All of the parties’ pretrial
`
`preparations have yet to occur, and trial is still seven months away. (Id. at 7-8.) In short, the
`
`lion’s share of the work for both the Court and the parties needed to get this case to trial still lies
`
`ahead.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should stay this case pending resolution of Facebook’s IPR petitions because
`
`all three relevant factors favor a stay:
`
`1 Less than a month after the Court invalidated yet another of its patents, Sound View filed a
`second action against Facebook in the Central District of California, asserting three different
`patents. Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04275 (C.D. Cal.)
`2 Briefly, while the Court’s order on Sound View’s reconsideration motion identified a structure
`for the claims, no algorithm exists in the patent to explain how the identified structures perform
`the claimed function and thus the patent remains invalid. See, e.g., Media Rights Techs., Inc. v.
`Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (for “computer-implemented
`functions,” the specification must “disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function”),
`cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1173 (2016); Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1352
`(Fed. Cir. 2015); Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`3 As the Court may recall, Facebook requested early summary judgment to file 101 motions on
`many of the asserted patents, but the Court instructed Facebook to wait until the summary
`judgment deadline to file them.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 2878
`
`1. A stay will simplify the issues for trial;
`
`2. The large amount of outstanding work to prepare this case for trial favors a stay;
`
`and
`
`3. A stay will not unduly prejudice Sound View or present a clear tactical
`
`disadvantage.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“In determining whether to grant a stay, the court considers: (1) whether granting the stay
`
`will simplify the issues for trial; (2) whether discovery is complete and a trial date is set; and (3)
`
`whether granting a stay would cause the non-moving party to suffer undue prejudice from any
`
`delay, or a clear tactical disadvantage.” CallWave Commc’ns, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Civ.
`
`No. 12-1701-RGA, 2015 WL 1284203, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2015) (citing Vehicle IP LLC v.
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civ. No. 10-503-SLR, 2010 WL 4823393, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 22, 2010)).
`
`Here, all three factors weigh in favor of a stay and the benefits attendant to a stay clearly
`
`outweigh the costs of delay.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Congress enacted the AIA “to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system
`
`that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs”
`
`and “to create a timely, cost-effective alternative to litigation.” U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office, Changes
`
`to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review
`
`Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Review Patents, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48680-01, 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.). The benefits
`
`and efficiencies afforded by the AIA’s review proceedings are manifest in this case. Facebook’s
`
`IPR petitions have the potential to dispose of Sound View’s entire case against Facebook and, at
`
`a minimum, will narrow the case. A stay may relieve the parties and the Court of the substantial
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 2879
`
`burdens of expert discovery, dispositive motions practice, pretrial proceedings, and a jury trial.
`
`To benefit from the full cost-savings and streamlining envisioned by Congress, an immediate
`
`stay is warranted.
`
`A.
`
`Facebook’s Petitions Will Simplify the Issues For Trial and May Dispose of
`the Need for Trial Entirely
`
`As Judge Bryson, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Texas, explained “the
`
`most important factor bearing on whether to grant a stay in this case is the prospect that the inter
`
`partes review proceeding will result in simplification of the issues before the Court.” NFC Tech.
`
`LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
`
`11, 2015). In this case, granting a stay will undeniably simplify and streamline the issues:
`
`Facebook’s petitions cover all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit and thus “could dispose of
`
`the entire litigation: the ultimate simplification of issues.” VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.Com,
`
`Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Even if some of the asserted claims ultimately are found valid, Facebook will be estopped
`
`from asserting invalidity defenses on “any ground that [it] raised or reasonably could have raised
`
`during that inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2); see also Bonutti Skeletal Innovations,
`
`L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., No. 12-cv-1107(GMS), 2014 WL 1369721, at *6 (D. Del. Apr.
`
`7, 2014) (finding simplification of issues favored stay even in the absence of full statutory
`
`estoppel). The AIA’s estoppel provision “heavily tips the scale in favor of granting the stay.”
`
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. C-12-3970 RMW, 2013 WL 5225522, at *4
`
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) (citations omitted).
`
`Admissions or statements made by Sound View in the IPR proceedings may also impact
`
`the scope of the claims at issue. See Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[S]tatements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 2880
`
`considered during claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution
`
`disclaimer.”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(statements made in prosecution can result in narrowed claim scope). Rather than having to
`
`revisit claim construction throughout this case, a stay pending the IPR would allow the record to
`
`develop and close on those issues before having to present them to a jury.
`
`The PTAB’s review of Facebook’s petitions will certainly simplify the issues for trial and
`
`may obviate the need for a trial altogether. As such, this factor weighs strongly in favor of
`
`granting a stay.
`
`B.
`
`Fact Discovery, Expert Discovery, Dispositive Motions, and all Pretrial
`Proceedings Remain Outstanding
`
`As the Federal Circuit has noted, the proper analysis of this factor focuses on “how much
`
`more remains to be done in litigation before reaching the trial date.” Versata Software, Inc. v.
`
`Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing VirtualAgility, 759 F.3d at
`
`1317).4 Here, the simple answer to this question is: a great deal.
`
`For purposes of evaluating this factor, “the time of the motion is the relevant time to
`
`measure the stage of litigation.” VirtualAgility, 759 F.3d at 1317; NFC Tech., 2015 WL 1069111,
`
`at *3 (discussing the state of the proceedings that “the time the motion to stay was filed”). Fact
`
`discovery has just closed, but with the Court’s recent decision on the ’786 patent, discovery will
`
`reopen for issues relating to that patent. The parties have not yet served expert reports, have not
`
`yet reached dispositive motion briefing, and “the bulk of the expenses that the parties would
`
`incur in pretrial work and trial preparation are still in the future.” NFC Tech., 2015 WL 1069111,
`
`at *3; see also CallWave, 2015 WL 1284203, at *1 (granting stay even where “[d]iscovery is
`
`4 The Federal Circuit vacated its opinion in Versata on procedural grounds because the parties
`jointly moved to dismiss the case the day before the opinion issued. See Versata Software, Inc. v.
`Callidus Software, Inc., 780 F.3d 1134, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Nonetheless, the reasoning in
`Versata remains persuasive on motions to stay pending PTAB review.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 2881
`
`more advanced than would be ideal” because depositions had been taken but giving weight to
`
`fact that “expert discovery ha[d] not yet begun.”). A stay at this juncture is appropriate and has
`
`the potential to eliminate or reduce the significant expenditure of this Court’s and the parties’
`
`time and resources in preparing for a potentially unnecessary motion practice and trial.5
`
`C.
`
`No Undue Prejudice or Tactical Disadvantage Exists
`
`Neither undue prejudice nor tactical disadvantage is of concern here. While some delay is
`
`inherent in all stays pending PTAB proceedings, “[p]otential delay does not in itself establish
`
`undue prejudice to the non-movant.” Bonutti, 2014 WL 1369721, at *2. “In order to best gauge
`
`whether granting a stay would cause the non-movant undue prejudice or place it at a tactical
`
`disadvantage, the court weighs a variety of subfactors. These include ‘the timing of the request
`
`for reexamination, the timing of the request for stay, the status of the reexamination proceedings,
`
`and the relationship of the parties.’” Id. (quoting Boston Sci. Corp, v. Cordis Corp., 777 F. Supp.
`
`2d 783, 789 (D. Del. 2011)).
`
`1.
`
`Facebook acted diligently in requesting IPR and moving for a stay
`
`Facebook filed its petitions for IPR before the one-year statutory deadline mandated by
`
`the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Because Sound View would not meaningfully disclose its
`
`infringement theories or its validity interrogatory responses until nearly a month before
`
`Facebook’s statutory deadline to file its IPR petitions was due, Facebook was hamstrung in its
`
`ability to file its petitions earlier. (See supra, § II.) Sound View also would not commit to
`
`conception and reduction to practice dates, which define the universe of potential prior art, until
`
`
`5 Although not explicitly a factor, the Federal Circuit has approved of a district court’s
`consideration of the burden of remaining litigation in the IPR context. See Murata Mach. USA v.
`Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of motion to lift stay);
`see also NFC Tech., 2015 WL 1069111, at *5 (“[W]hether a stay will reduce the burden of
`litigation on the parties and the court-is a consideration that courts often take into account in
`determining whether to grant a stay pending inter partes review.”). Consideration of this
`additional factor further weighs heavily in favor of granting a stay.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 2882
`
`ordered to do so by the Court. (D.I. 72.) Despite these hurdles, Facebook drafted and filed its
`
`petitions diligently and without any dilatory motive. See Bonutti, 2014 WL 1369721, at *3
`
`(finding no dilatory motive where IPRs were filed up to the statutory deadline and where
`
`patentee’s conduct contributed to any delay); see also Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. Cooler Master
`
`Co., Ltd., No. 13-cv-00457-JST, 2014 WL 1350813, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014).
`
`Similarly, no dilatory motive exists as to the timing of Facebook’s request for a stay. As
`
`Facebook explained at the August 7, 2017 hearing, Facebook brings this motion so that it may be
`
`considered by the Court shortly after the expected institution decisions.
`
`2.
`
`Institution decisions are imminent
`
`Although the PTAB has not yet issued institution decisions on Facebook’s IPR petitions,
`
`such decisions are due in the coming weeks. Courts can exercise their discretion to grant stays
`
`pending IPR even where, as here, an institution decision has not yet issued. See, e.g., Miics &
`
`Partners Am. Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. 14-803-RGA, 2015 WL 9854845, at *2 (D. Del. Aug.
`
`11, 2015) (granting stay while petitions remained pending and expert discovery was months
`
`away); Neste Oil, 2013 WL 3353984, at *5; Bonutti, 2014 WL 1369721, at *4.6 Thus, while the
`
`PTAB proceedings are in a relatively early stage, the parties and the Court will soon receive
`
`more clarity as to the scope of the PTAB’s review.
`
`3.
`
`Sound View does not compete with Facebook
`
`It is undisputed that Sound View is a non-practicing licensing entity that does not
`
`compete with Facebook. Accordingly, a stay would at most defer any potential damages award
`
`and would thus cause no undue prejudice to Sound View. VirtualAgility, 759 F.3d at 1318. (“A
`
`stay will not diminish the monetary damages to which [plaintiff] will be entitled if it succeeds in
`
`
`6 If the PTAB institutes IPR proceedings, as Facebook expects it will, “the parallel district court
`litigation ordinarily should be stayed.” NFC Tech., 2015 WL 1069111, at *6-7 (collecting cases).
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 2883
`
`its infringement suit—it only delays realization of those damages.”). Moreover, Sound View is
`
`separately litigating other claims against Facebook in parallel in the Central District of
`
`California. See Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04275 (C.D.
`
`Cal.)
`
`Because Sound View is not a market participant, it does not risk being unduly prejudiced
`
`by the short delay attendant to the PTAB’s review of the patents-in-suit. CallWave, 2015 WL
`
`1284203, at *1 (“[Plaintiff] is not a competitor of Defendants. Any purported harm that
`
`[Plaintiff] suffers from a stay can be fully compensated by monetary damages.”); Miics &
`
`Partners, 2015 WL 9854845, at *1 (“Plaintiffs are not competitors of the defendants, and . . . are
`
`realistically looking only for monetary damages.”); Bonutti, 2014 WL 1369721, at *5 (Patentee’s
`
`“status as a non-practicing entity, rather than a market participant suggests there is little risk that
`
`it will lose sales or goodwill in the market.”); see also Benefit Funding Sys. LLC v. Advance Am.
`
`Cash Advance Ctrs. Inc., 767 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming stay where district
`
`court found prejudice factor strongly favored stay because “[t]he plaintiffs do not practice the
`
`patents and are not competitors of the defendants.”).
`
`Throughout this litigation, Facebook has acted diligently and without dilatory motive. Its
`
`requests for IPR and this request for a stay will not cause any undue prejudice or tactical
`
`disadvantage to Sound View as a non-practicing entity. As such, this final factor weighs in favor
`
`of staying this action.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`All of the above discussed considerations respectfully point to the only proper outcome:
`
`the Court should stay these proceedings pending final resolution of Facebook’s petitions for inter
`
`partes review.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 2884
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Karen Jacobs
`____________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`jying@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Elizabeth L. Stameshkin
`Andrew C. Mace
`Sarah Whitney
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5000
`
`Phillip E. Morton
`Emily E. Terrell
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 842-7800
`
`Michael G. Rhodes
`COOLEY LLP
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
`
`August 16, 2017
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 165 Filed 08/16/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 2885
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 16, 2107, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`
`
`
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
`
`such filing to all registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`August 16, 2017, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire
`Megan C. Haney, Esquire
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.
`1200 North Broom Street
`Wilmington, DE 19806-4204
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Alan S. Kellman, Esquire
`Tamir Packin, Esquire
`Tom BenGera, Esquire
`Edward Geist, Esquire
`Jason Berrebi, Esquire
`Wesley L. White, Esquire
`Richard M. Cowell, Esquire
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Karen Jacobs
`
`
`
`
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`