Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 5747
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and
`Metacluster LT, UAB,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No.
`2: 19-cv-00395-JRG
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`OXYLABS' MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`
`SIEBMAN, FORREST,
`B URG & SMITH LLP
`
`M ICHAEL C. SMITH
`
`CHARBON CALLAHAN
`ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`
`STEVEN CALLAHAN
`CRAIG T OLLIVER
`G EORGE T. "JORDE" SCOTT
`M ITCHELL SIBLEY
`
`September 29, 2020
`
`Counsel for Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB,
`and Metacluster LT, UAB
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 001
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 5748
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`Background ......................................................................................................................... 2
`Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 4
`The Court Should Stay The Case ........................................................................................ 4
`A.
`The Simplification Factor Favors A Stay ................................................................. 4
`B.
`The Undue Prejudice Factor Favors A Stay ............................................................. 6
`C.
`The Stage Of Litigation Factor Favors A Stay ......................................................... 8
`D.
`If The Court Waits To Make A Stay Decision Until The PTAB
`Decides Whether To Institute The IPRs, The Court Should
`Evaluate The Stay Factors As Of The Date Oxylabs Filed This Motion .................. 9
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 002
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 5749
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................5
`
`Clinton v. Jones,
`520 U.S. 681 (1997) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`e-Watch Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`13-CV-1061, 2015 WL 12915668 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015) ..................................................8
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................3
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`16-CV-00052, 2017 WL 4385567 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2017) ....................................................5
`
`Infernal Tech., LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc.,
`15-CV-01523, 2016 WL 9000458 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016) ..................................................5
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp.,
`15-CV-00059, 2016 WL 4394485 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2016)...................................................4
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. U.S. Bancorp,
`13-CV-2071, 2014 WL 5369386 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2014) .......................................................6
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`13-CV-1058, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) ................................................4, 6
`
`Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. TP-Link Techs., Co.,
`13-CV-384, 2014 WL 5035718 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2014) .........................................................8
`
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`13-CV-01317, 2020 WL 520618 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ......................................................2
`
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co.,
`19-CV-00152, 2020 WL 4040716 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2020) ...............................................4, 8
`
`Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. Music Choice,
`16-CV-00586, 2017 WL 9885167 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2017) ..............................................5, 6
`
`Stragent, LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`16-CV-446, 2017 WL 2839260 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) .......................................................6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`16-CV-638, 2017 WL 9885168 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2017).......................................................4
`ii
`
`
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 003
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 5750
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc.,
`771 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated, 780 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...............................8
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................6, 8
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ...........................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ...................................................................................................................4, 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) .....................................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) ......................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(c) .........................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 004
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5751
`
`Defendants Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB (collectively,
`
`“Oxylabs”) file this Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Reviews (the “Motion”), and respect-
`
`fully show as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Oxylabs moves to stay this case pending completion of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board’s (“PTAB”) inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) of the three patents-in-suit. Oxylabs recently
`
`filed three petitions with the PTAB directed to the three patents-in-suit. Oxylabs’ petitions are
`
`strong, and the petitions challenge the patentability of all of the asserted claims in this case based
`
`on anticipatory prior-art references and combinations that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`did not consider during prosecution.
`
`The stay factors favor Oxylabs. First, resolution of the pending IPRs will significantly
`
`simplify the present litigation. If instituted, the petitions are likely to result in the invalidation of
`
`some, if not all, of the asserted claims.1 Additionally, any statements Luminati makes in the IPRs
`
`will be relevant to issues here, including issues of claim construction, which the Court has not
`
`yet addressed. And, if the IPRs are instituted and the patents survive, Section 315(e)(2) estoppel
`
`will apply, thus narrowing the case as well.
`
`Second, Luminati faces no undue prejudice by a stay because any delay associated with a
`
`stay can be compensated by monetary damages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See PTAB’s Trial Statistics (Jan. 2020) at 10, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
`default/files/documents/trial_statistics_20200131.pdf (81% of instituted petitions result in some
`or all claims being held invalid).
`
`
`
`1
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 005
`
`

`

`ase 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 5752
`
`
`
`Third, this case remains in its infancy. The Court will not hold a Markman hearing until
`
`
`
`-C
`
`November 2020, and trial is not scheduled until May 2021. The parties have not produced their
`
`e-mails, no depositions have taken place, and expert reports and the conclusion of fact and expert
`
`discovery remain many months away.
`
`Oxylabs brings this Motion now when the factors this Court considers—the simplifica-
`
`tion of pending issues, state of the proceedings, and risk of undue prejudice to the plaintiff—all
`
`weigh in favor of granting a stay. Oxylabs is aware that this Court typically does not grant a stay
`
`pending IPRs not yet instituted, but Oxylabs respectfully suggests that this case is unique in view
`
`of
`
` and (ii)
`
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`Luminati filed this case on December 6, 2019. See ECF No. 1. Luminati served its origi-
`
`nal infringement contentions on May 4, 2020 and its amended infringement contentions on July
`
`30, 2020. ECF No. 45 (Notice of P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 Disclosures); Ex. 4 (Amended Patent Local
`
`Rule 3-1 Disclosures).2
`
`On July 14, 2020, July 28, 2020, and September 4, 2020, Oxylabs filed petitions for IPR
`
`of all asserted claims of the three patents-in-suit. See Ex. 1 (’319 IPR petition); Ex. 2 (’510 IPR
`
`
`2 Oxylabs does not attach the accompanying charts as they are voluminous.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 006
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 5753
`
`petition); Ex. 3 (’614 IPR petition).3 As demonstrated in the petitions, Oxylabs’ challenges are
`
`strong, and each petition relies on anticipatory and combination prior art not considered by the
`
`patent office when originally examining the patents-in-suit.
`
`Luminati has three months from the notice of filing date issued by the PTAB to file a pre-
`
`liminary response to each of the petitions, and the PTAB will then decide whether to institute
`
`each petition within three months from the date of the response. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.107 (b). The PTAB issued notices of filing dates for the three IPRs on July 14, 2020
`
`(’319 IPR), July 28, 2020 (’510 IPR), and September 4, 2020 (’614 IPR). Luminati must file any
`
`preliminary responses no later than three months after the date of the notice of filings dates—
`
`here, Luminati must file any preliminary responses on or before October 26, 2020 (’319 IPR),
`
`November 20, 2020 (’510 IPR), and December 9, 2020 (’614 IPR). 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b). The
`
`PTAB will issue its Institution Decisions no later than January 26, 2021 (’319 IPR), February 22,
`
`2021 (’510 IPR), and March 9, 2021 (’614 IPR). 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). Absent good cause, the
`
`PTAB must make a final determination in each of the IPRs within a year after institution—i.e.,
`
`on or before January 26, 2022 (’319 IPR), February 22, 2022 (’510 IPR), and March 9, 2022
`
`(’614 IPR). 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
`
`A Markman hearing is scheduled on November 10, 2020. See ECF No. 65 (Docket Con-
`
`trol Order). Fact discovery closes on December 14, 2020, expert discovery is not complete until
`
`January 21, 2021, and dispositive motions are not due until January 25, 2021. Id. Jury selection
`
`is on May 3, 2021. Id.
`
`
`3 Oxylabs has not attached the IPR petitions’ exhibits as they are voluminous. But they are
`publicly available, and the Court may take judicial notice of them. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(c); Per-
`sonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 13-CV-01317, 2020 WL 520618, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31,
`2020) (“The IPR materials cited by Defendants and Plaintiff are subject to judicial notice.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 007
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 5754
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A district court has the inherent power to control its docket, including the broad power to
`
`stay proceedings. See, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`
`849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “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 Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., 13-CV-1058, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11,
`
`2015).
`
`IV.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD STAY THE CASE
`
`Each of the relevant factors favors a stay.
`
`A.
`
`The Simplification Factor Favors A Stay
`
`Should the PTAB institute the IPRs, a stay pending the IPRs’ conclusion will significant-
`
`ly simplify or eliminate issues in this case. If the PTAB concludes that the asserted claims are
`
`
`
`4
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 008
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 5755
`
`invalid, this case will not need to proceed.4 On the other hand, if the PTAB confirms the validity
`
`of the asserted claims, issues in this case will be narrowed as estoppel will apply. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(e)(2); see also Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., 19-CV-00152, 2020 WL
`
`4040716, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2020) (“This factor weighs in favor of a stay. Regardless of
`
`whether the IPRs result in invalidating the Asserted Claims, there is still a substantial likelihood
`
`that the issues will be narrowed. Each asserted claim will either be invalidated by the PTAB or
`
`Samsung will be precluded from making certain invalidity arguments in this case.”); Stingray
`
`Music USA, Inc. v. Music Choice, 16-CV-00586, 2017 WL 9885167, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 12,
`
`2017) (“A stay is particularly justified when the outcome of a PTO proceeding is likely to assist
`
`the court in determining patent validity or eliminate the need to try infringement issues.”) (cita-
`
`tion and quotations omitted).
`
`Even if the PTAB declines to institute the IPRs, a brief stay will not meaningfully impact
`
`this litigation and may assist this Court’s resolution of the case—e.g., statements made by Lumi-
`
`nati about the scope of its patents-in-suit in its responses to Oxylabs’ petitions for IPR may prove
`
`
`4 See, e.g., NFC Tech., 2015 WL 1069111, at *4 (“In the Court’s view, 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. Congress’s purpose in cre-
`ating an inter partes review procedure was to allow the administrative agency that issues patents
`to consider new information bearing on whether those patents should be canceled or confirmed.
`Giving the agency the authority to consider the validity of patents in the inter partes review pro-
`cess was designed in large measure to simplify proceedings before the courts and to give the
`courts the benefit of the expert agency’s full and focused consideration of the effect of prior art
`on patents being asserted in litigation.”); Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp.,
`15-CV-00059, 2016 WL 4394485, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2016) (“[T]he most important factor
`bearing on whether to grant a stay in this case is the prospect that the inter partes review pro-
`ceeding will result in simplification of issues before the Court.”) (citing and quoting NFC Tech.,
`2015 WL 1069111, at *4); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 16-CV-638, 2017 WL
`9885168, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2017) (“[E]ven if the PTAB does not invalidate every claim
`on which it has instituted IPR, there is a significant likelihood that the outcome of the IPR pro-
`ceedings will streamline the scope of this case to an appreciable extent.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 009
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 5756
`
`highly relevant or even case determinative.5 Additionally, an immediate stay would allow the
`
`parties and the Court to avoid the burden and expense of the claim-construction hearing. If the
`
`Court denies Oxylabs’ Motion, the time spent by the Court deciding claim-construction issues
`
`may prove futile if the PTAB finds certain claims invalid or if Luminati takes positions during
`
`the IPRs that impact claim scope, such as amending the claims or disclaiming claim scope.
`
`B.
`
`The Undue Prejudice Factor Favors A Stay
`
`Luminati will not suffer any cognizable prejudice if the Court grants a stay. Any undue
`
`delay associated with a stay may be compensated in monetary damages. See, e.g., Infernal Tech.,
`
`LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., 15-CV-01523, 2016 WL 9000458, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016) (“A
`
`stay, however, will not diminish the monetary damages Plaintiffs seek if they ultimately succeed
`
`after IPR—a stay ‘only delays realization of those damages and delays any potential injunctive
`
`remedy.’”) (citing and quoting VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1318
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014)); NFC Tech., 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (vindication of patent rights is “not suf-
`
`ficient, standing alone, to defeat a stay motion”); Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. U.S. Bancorp,
`
`13-CV-2071, 2014 WL 5369386, at *5 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2014) (“[T]he availability of monetary
`
`damages can ameliorate potential undue prejudice [associated with a stay], especially where the
`
`non-moving party has not explained why money damages are not an adequate remedy.”).
`
`Nor should the Court credit any claim from Luminati that what it really wants in this case
`
`
`5 See, e.g., Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (find-
`ing that “statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be relied on to sup-
`port a finding of prosecution disclaimer during claim construction”); Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-
`Mobile US, Inc., 16-CV-00052, 2017 WL 4385567, at *3-4 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2017) (relying on
`statements made in preliminary response to IPR petition to find disavowal of process such that
`patentee’s “unequivocal statements to the Patent Office now preclude [it] from” proving in-
`fringement).
`
`
`
`6
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 010
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 5757
`
`is an injunction. Luminati did not seek a preliminary injunction;6
`
`
`
` (see Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, Case 2:18-cv-00299-JRG (E.D. Tex.),
`
` (see, e.g., Ex. 5; Ex.
`
`
`
`6);
`
`-
`
`ECF No. 305). These are not the actions taken by a patent holder suffering “irreparable” injury
`
`on account of alleged patent infringement.
`
`Not staying this case, in contrast, will prejudice Oxylabs.
`
`
` See ECF No. 26 at 2-4
`■
`
`).
`
` Id.
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 4. There
`
`is no reason to think that this case will be any different, especially where the patents-in-suit only
`
`issued in April and November 2019. Congress established IPRs as an efficient substitute for cost-
`
`ly and burdensome district-court litigation, and the Court should stay this case to allow the IPRs
`
`to conclude to conserve judicial and party resources.
`
`
`6 See, e.g., Stingray, 2017 WL 9885167, at *2 (“Here, as in VirtualAgility, the plaintiff did
`not move for a preliminary injunction, which contradicts Music Choice’s assertion it cannot wait
`for a decision on infringement.”); Stragent, LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 16-CV-446, 2017 WL
`2839260, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (“[B]ecause Stragent seeks exclusively monetary dam-
`ages, as opposed to a preliminary injunction or other relief, mere delay in collecting those dam-
`ages does not constitute undue prejudice.”) (citation and quotations omitted).
`7 Luminati’s prior lawsuits against BI Science and IP Ninja apparently caused those enti-
`ties to exit the marketplace. See Ex. 7 (Luminati press release announcing that BI Science will
`“discontinue its proxy service business”); compare Luminati Networks Ltd. v. IP Ninja Ltd., Case
`2:19-cv-00196-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (ECF No. 1 ¶ 13) (Luminati’s Complaint identifying IP Ninja’s
`website as https://ipninja.io); with https://ipninja.io (IP Ninja’s website unavailable as of Sept.
`28, 2020).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 011
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 5758
`
`C.
`
`The Stage Of Litigation Factor Favors A Stay
`
`Oxylabs filed its IPR petitions quickly—it concluded filing the three petitions about 1
`
`month after receiving Luminati’s amended infringement contentions. See Section II, above. Then
`
`Oxylabs diligently filed this motion to stay. This case remains in its infancy with the most bur-
`
`densome parts of the case yet to come.
`
`As of today, no depositions have taken place, the parties have not produced their e-mails,
`
`the Court has not issued a claim-construction ruling (or any other substantive decision on the
`
`parties’ claims), the Markman hearing is not until November 2020, no expert reports have been
`
`served, expert discovery has not begun, summary judgment briefs have not been filed, and trial is
`
`not until May 2021. See ECF No. 65 (Docket Control Order). Additionally, the EMK and Hola
`
`counterclaim defendants have not yet appeared in this case.
`
`There remains a substantial amount of work to do in this case, and a stay will serve to
`
`conserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources.8 See, e.g., Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. TP-Link
`
`Techs., Co., 13-CV-384, 2014 WL 5035718, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2014) (“Courts often find
`
`the stage of litigation weighs in favor of a stay if there remains a significant amount of work
`
`ahead for the parties and the court, even when the parties and/or the court have already devoted
`
`substantial resources to the litigation.”) (citation and quotations omitted); Versata Software, Inc.
`
`v. Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[W]e must also be mindful of
`
`the burden on the parties and the court in completing both fact and expert discovery, resolving
`
`summary judgment motions, completing the Markman process, and preparing for trial.”), vacat-
`
`ed, 780 F.3d 1134, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (parties’ voluntary and unconditional dismissal of
`
`8 Oxylabs also agrees that the Court may appropriately stay the lawsuit Oxylabs filed
`against Luminati if it stays this lawsuit. See Teso LT, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd. et al.,
`Case 2:20-cv-00073-JRG (E.D. Tex.). In other words, Oxylabs does not seek to obtain a proce-
`dural advantage over Luminati concerning the timing of the parties’ lawsuits.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 012
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 5759
`
`complaint the day before the opinion issued mooted appeal).
`
`D.
`
`If The Court Waits To Make A Stay Decision Until The PTAB Decides
`Whether To Institute The IPRs, The Court Should Evaluate The Stay Fac-
`tors As Of The Date Oxylabs Filed This Motion
`
`If the Court denies the instant motion to stay without prejudice to its refiling following
`
`any institution of the IPRs, the Court should evaluate any subsequent motion to stay as of the
`
`date Oxylabs filed the instant motion. See, e.g., VirtualAgility, 759 F.3d at 1317 (“Generally, the
`
`time of the motion is the relevant time to measure the stage of litigation.”); Solas, 2020 WL
`
`4040716, at *2 (“[T]he Court must accord some weight to the timing of Samsung’s Original Mo-
`
`tion[.]”); e-Watch Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 13-CV-1061, 2015 WL 12915668, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
`
`25, 2015) (“[T]he Court must accord some weight to the timing of HTC’s initial Motion to
`
`Stay.”).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, the Court should stay the case pending the conclusion of the IPRs.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 013
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 5760
`
`Dated: September 29, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL C. SMITH
` Texas State Bar No. 18650410
` michaelsmith@siebman.com
`SIEBMAN, FORREST,
`BURG & SMITH LLP
`113 East Austin Street
`Marshall, Texas 75671
`Telephone: (903) 938-8900
`Telecopier: (972) 767-4620
`
`STEVEN CALLAHAN
` Texas State Bar No. 24053122
` scallahan@ccrglaw.com
`CRAIG TOLLIVER
` Texas State Bar No. 24028049
` ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`GEORGE T. “JORDE” SCOTT
` Texas State Bar No. 24061276
` jscott@ccrglaw.com
`MITCHELL SIBLEY
` Texas State Bar No. 24073097
` msibley@ccrglaw.com
`CHARHON CALLAHAN
`ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`Telephone: (214) 521-6400
`Telecopier: (214) 764-8392
`
`Counsel for Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB,
`and Metacluster LT, UAB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 014
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 131 Filed 10/01/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 5761
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned certifies that, on September 29, 2020, counsel for Oxylabs (Steven Cal-
`lahan and Michael Smith) met and conferred by telephone with counsel for Luminati (Robert
`Harkins, Ron Wielkopolski, and Elizabeth DeRieux) and Luminati advised that it is opposed to
`the request for relief in the foregoing motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEVEN CALLAHAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compli-
`ance with Local Rule CV-5(a) on September 29, 2020. As such, this document was served on all
`counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). The
`foregoing document has also been served on Luminati’s counsel, Sunny Cherian, Esq., by e-mail
`on September 29, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEVEN CALLAHAN
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing pleading is filed under seal pursuant to the
`Court’s Protective Order.
`
`
`
`.A-eCLdt-.
`
`STEVEN CALLAHAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2001
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 015
`
`