Case 2:20-cv-00051-JRG Document 68 Filed 10/06/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 427
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VARTA MICROBATTERY GMBH,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`
`BEST BUY STORES, L.P., ET AL.
`
`PEAG, LLC
`
`AUDIO PARTNERSHIP LLC, ET AL
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00051-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00052-JRG
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00054-JRG
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00071-JRG
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00138-JRG
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00029-JRG
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants PEAG, LLC d/b/a JLab Audio, Audio Partnership LLC and
`
`Audio Partnership PLC d/b/a Cambridge Audio’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Opposed Motion to
`
`Stay Pending Inter Partes Review in Case Nos. 2:20-cv-00071 and 2:20-cv-00138 (the “Motion”).
`
`(Dkt. No. 64.).
`
`The district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to
`
`stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). How to best manage the court’s
`
`docket “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an
`
`even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936).
`
`VARTA Ex. 2007 Page 1 of 3
`PEAG/Audio Partnership v. VARTA
`IPR2020-01212
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00051-JRG Document 68 Filed 10/06/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 428
`
`“District courts typically consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay
`
`pending inter partes review of a patent in suit: (1) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the
`
`nonmoving party, (2) whether the proceedings before the court have reached an advanced stage,
`
`including whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, and (3) whether the stay will
`
`likely result in simplifying the case before the court.” NFC Techs. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No.
`
`2:13-cv-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.). “Based on
`
`th[ese] factors, courts determine whether the benefits of a stay outweigh the inherent costs of
`
`postponing resolution of the litigation.” Id.
`
`On July 7, 2020, Defendants filed IPR petitions with the Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”), challenging the patentability of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,153,835;
`
`9,496,581; 9,799,858; and 9,799,913 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 64 at 1). The
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) should provide a decision regarding whether or not to
`
`institute review by or before January 7, 2021. (See id. at 2). Where a motion to stay is filed before
`
`the PTAB institutes any proceeding, courts often withhold a ruling pending action on the petition
`
`by the PTAB or deny the motion without prejudice to refiling in the event that the PTAB institutes
`
`a proceeding. VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(citing Checkfree Corp. v. Metavante Corp., No. 12-cv-15, 2014 WL 466023, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan.
`
`17, 2014)); see also NFC Techs., 2015 WL 1069111, at *6. Indeed, this Court has a consistent
`
`practice of denying motions to stay when the PTAB has yet to institute post-grant proceedings.
`
`Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-cv-1047-WCB, 2015 WL 1069179, at *6
`
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.) (“This Court’s survey of cases from the Eastern District of
`
`Texas shows that when the PTAB has not yet acted on a petition for inter partes review, the courts
`
`have uniformly denied motions for a stay.”).
`
`VARTA Ex. 2007 Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00051-JRG Document 68 Filed 10/06/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 429
`
`
`
`Considering these circumstances, the Court concludes that the Defendants’ motion is
`
`premature, and a stay of these proceedings in advance of the PTAB’s decision on whether or not
`
`to grant the petition for inter partes review is not appropriate. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion
`
`to Stay (Dkt. No. 64) is DENIED, but this denial is entered WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling
`
`of the same, which shall be permitted within 14 days following the PTAB’s institution decision
`
`regarding the last of the patents-in-suit to be acted upon by the PTAB.
`
`
`
`So Ordered this
`Oct 6, 2020
`
`VARTA Ex. 2007 Page 3 of 3
`
`