`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`J & K IP ASSETS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ARMASPEC, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-07308-WHO
`
`ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Re: Dkt. No. 56
`
`On April 24, 2019, I denied without prejudice defendant Armaspec, Inc.’s motion for a
`
`stay because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had not made a decision on whether to institute
`
`inter partes review. Dkt. No. 45. On August 21, Armaspec gave notice that the PTAB had
`
`instituted IPR and renewed its request for a stay of this case. Dkt. No. 56. On September 9,
`
`plaintiff and patent owner J & K IP Asserts, LLC opposed the request for a stay. Dkt. No. 59. It
`
`asserts that while the PTAB’s decision might simplify the issues in this case, a stay is not
`
`warranted because trial is set for ten months from now and “the risk of harm and prejudice to J&K
`
`is great” given that the parties are competitors.
`
`A district court has inherent power to manage its own docket and stay proceedings,
`
`“including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” Ethicon,
`
`Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Three factors are relevant in deciding
`
`whether a civil action should be stayed pending IPR proceedings: “(1) whether discovery is
`
`complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay would 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.” PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). These
`
`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
`
`Juniper Exhibit 1099
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-07308-WHO Document 61 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`factors are “general considerations that are helpful in determining whether to order a stay,” but
`
`“ultimately the Court must decide stay requests on a case-by-case basis.” Asetek Holdings, Inc. v.
`
`Cooler Master Co., No. 13–cv–00457–JST, 2014 WL 1350813, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014).
`
`On these facts, a stay is appropriate. A ruling from the PTAB could simplify the issues
`
`before me, and a stay will avoid inconsistent results. Discovery has not closed, and the mere fact
`
`that the parties are competitors is not sufficient to show that a stay would prejudice J&K.
`
`Accordingly, this case is STAYED pending resolution of the IPR. The parties shall file a joint
`
`notice within two weeks of the PTAB’s final written decision.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 12, 2019
`
`William H. Orrick
`United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`Page 00002
`
`
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
