`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Case No. 19-cv-01904-WHO
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
`MOTION TO STAY
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 86
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) seeks to stay this patent infringement litigation until its inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) petitions are resolved before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).1 Dkt.
`
`No. 86. On January 21, 2020, the PTAB instituted IPR of all claims of the ‘999 patent, the sole-
`
`asserted patent in this case. According to Apple, a stay is appropriate because the IPR process
`
`might moot this litigation in its entirety if Apple’s IPR is successful, and regardless of what the
`
`PTAB ultimately decides, the issues to be litigated will be simplified by, and I may gain guidance
`
`from, the PTAB’s final written decision.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) does not oppose the motion but notes that this case is far
`
`advanced. Dkt. No. 87. The earlier the stage of litigation, the more favored the stay. See Telemac
`
`Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Courts often weigh a stay
`
`
`1 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) (“PersonalWeb II”). These
`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., Case No. 13–cv–00457–JST, 2014 WL 1350813, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3,
`2014).
`
`
`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
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2050 Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`
`
`for IPR proceedings considering whether: (i) “parties have engaged in costly expert discovery and
`
`dispositive motion practice;” (ii) “the court has issued its claim construction order;” and (iii) “the
`
`court has set a trial date.” PersonalWeb II. I issued a scheduling order in this case on July 16,
`
`2019, setting the claim construction hearing for February 21, 2020, the close of fact discovery for
`
`May 21, 2020, the close of expert discovery for August 15, 2020, and trial for October 26, 2020.
`
`Dkt. No. 58. Although I set a trial date, parties here have not engaged in costly discovery and a
`
`claim construction order has not been issued yet.
`
`For these reasons, Apple’s unopposed motion to stay pending IPR is GRANTED. All
`
`deadlines in this case are suspended pending further order of the court. Parties are ordered to file
`
`notify the court and to request a case management conference as soon as the IPR is decided.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: January 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2050 Page 2 of 2
`
`