Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 117 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 16
`
`THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
` SRC LABS LLC and SAINT REGIS
`MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`NOTED FOR:
`FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2018
`
`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
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.’S MOTION TO STAY
`(2:18-cv-00321-JLR)
`
`LAW OFFICES
`CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
`SEATTLE, WA 98101
`TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2019, p. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 117 Filed 10/11/18 Page 2 of 16
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 3
`THE DISTRICT COURT CASE SHOULD BE STAYED
`PENDING RESOLUTION OF MICROSOFT’S IPR PETITIONS. ................................. 4
`A.
`A Stay Will Likely Simplify the Issues in this Case. ................................. 4
`B.
`The Early Stage of this Litigation Weighs in Favor of a Stay. .................. 6
`C.
`SRC Labs and SRMT Will Not Be Prejudiced by a Stay. ......................... 7
`D.
`Plaintiffs’ Attempt to Avoid IPR Should Have No
`Impact on Whether a Stay is Appropriate. ................................................. 7
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.’S MOTION TO STAY
`(2:18-cv-00321-JLR)
`
`i
`
`
`
`LAW OFFICES
`CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
`SEATTLE, WA 98101
`TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2019, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 117 Filed 10/11/18 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1455-WCB, 2017 WL4619790 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2017) ............................ 8, 9
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................ 6
`
`Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-3745-PJH, 2017 WL 5153588 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) ....................................... 3
`
`Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. C08-0184JLR, 2009 WL 357902 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2009) ......................................... 7
`
`Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Allergan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01127 (PTAB). ................................................................................................ passim
`
`Nat’l Prods., Inc. v. Arkon Res., Inc.,
`No. C15-1984JLR (W.D. Wash. Oct. 14, 2016) ............................................................. passim
`
`Nat’l Prods., Inc. v. Arkon Res., Inc.,
`No. C15-1984JLR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2016) .................................................................... 6
`
`Pacific Bioscience Labs., Inc. v. Pretika Corp.,
`760 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (W.D. Wash. 2011). .............................................................................. 6
`
`Pactool Int’l Ltd. v. Dewalt Indus. Tool Co.,
`No. C06-5367, 2008 WL 312677 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2008) (Settle, J.) ............................... 3
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 11-CV-02168-EJD, 2011 WL 4802958 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011) .................................. 4
`
`Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd.,
`No. C12-1873, 2013 WL 2099518 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 2013) (Jones, J.)............................. 3
`
`RW Distrib., Inc. v. Waterfall Pond Supply of Wash., Inc.,
`No. C10-1626, 2011 WL 13192713 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2011) (Lasnik, J.)....................... 4
`
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................ 9
`
`Supercell Oy v. Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC,
`No. C15-1119JLR, 2016 WL 9226493 (W.D. Wash. July 28, 2016) ...................................... 3
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.’S MOTION TO STAY
`(2:18-cv-00321-JLR)
`
`ii
`
`LAW OFFICES
`CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
`SEATTLE, WA 98101
`TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2019, p. 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 117 Filed 10/11/18 Page 4 of 16
`
`Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp.,
`878 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................ 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
` “Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR, DBM,” PTAB, August 2018 ............................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.’S MOTION TO STAY
`(2:18-cv-00321-JLR)
`
`iii
`
`LAW OFFICES
`CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
`SEATTLE, WA 98101
`TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2019, p. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00321-JLR Document 117 Filed 10/11/18 Page 5 of 16
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`SRC Labs, LLC (“SRC”) and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“SRMT”) (collectively,
`“Plaintiffs”) allege that Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) infringes six U.S. patents.
`Microsoft recently filed ten petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) to invalidate all asserted
`claims of all six patents. Based on the time of filing, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`(“PTAB”) will decide whether to institute those IPRs in March and April of 2019, and for any
`IPRs instituted, final written decisions will follow within one year thereafter.
`Microsoft’s pending IPR petitions warrant a stay of this litigation until they are
`resolved. First, the PTAB’s rulings on Microsoft’s petitions are likely to simplify the issues in
`question and the trial of this case by invalidating some or all of the asserted claims. Even a
`partial reduction in the number of claims will significantly reduce the number of technical
`expert reports, scale back related Daubert and summary judgment briefing, and eliminate the
`need for trial on those claims. Second, this case is still in its early stages, with only written
`discovery and document production, and a single deposition calendared to take place this
`month. Third, a stay would not unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. Four of the six asserted patents
`have already expired. Neither SRC Labs, LLC (a Texas LLC run by an investment manager in
`Dallas) nor SRMT (a sovereign American Indian tribe located in upstate New York) is a
`competitor of Microsoft, and any delay resulting from a stay could be remedied by monetary
`damages (if any damages ultimately are due).
`Plaintiffs’ opposition to Microsoft’s motion rests (at least in part) on the apparent
`transfer of the patents to SRMT: Plaintiffs theorize that the patents are immune from challenge
`in IPR proceedings based on SRMT’s status as a sovereign tribe, such that Microsoft’s petitions
`cannot succeed. But the Federal Circuit has already rejected that theory, as applied to SRMT
`itself. Although the Federal Circuit may yet hear that issue en banc, or SRMT may pursue it
`further in the Supreme Court, that only counsels in favor of a stay at least until that threshold
`issue is resolved.
`Accordingly, Microsoft respectfully requests a stay of this case pending resolution of
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.’S MOTION TO STAY
`(2:18-cv-00321-JLR)
`
`1
`
`
`
`LAW OFFICES
`CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
`SEATTLE, WA 98101
`TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2019, p. 5
`
`