`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
`Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
`
`vs.
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant/Counter Claimant.
`
` Case No. 20-cv-00563-YGR
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL RELATED
`TO STANDING QUESTION
`*as Modified by the Court*
`
`Date: N/A (see Gen. Order 72; Please see
`Notice of Motion)
`Time: N/A
`Judge: Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`Courtroom: 1, 4th Floor
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Now before the Court is Defendant and Counter-Claimant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) unopposed
`Motion to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeal Related to Standing Question. The Court has
`considered Apple’s motion. The Court finds that it is appropriate to stay this case pending the
`resolution of Apple’s interlocutory appeals related to the question of whether Plaintiff and Counter
`Defendant Omni MedSci, Inc. (“Omni”) has standing in the related actions Omni MedSci, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-05924-YGR, and Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-
`05673-YGR. The resolution of the question of standing has the potential to dispense with this case
`entirely. See Matera v. Google, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-04062, 2016 WL 454130, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`1
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
`CASE NO. 20-CV-00563-YGR
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. – Ex. 1065, p. 1
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00563-YGR Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Feb. 5, 2016) (finding resolution of question of standing “weighs in favor of granting a temporary
`stay”).
`In determining whether to stay this case, courts in this District examine three factors: “‘[1]
`the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which
`a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in
`terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be
`expected to result from a stay.’” Id. (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).
`The Court has considered these factors and finds that all three weigh in balance of a stay.
`Substantial work remains for the parties and for the Court in briefing, infringement contentions, and
`invalidity contentions, no trial date has been set, the result of the interlocutory appeal could be
`dispositive, and Omni does not compete with Apple and suffers no prejudice from a stay.
`According, Apple’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED. The pending motion for judgment on the
`pleadings is DENIED without prejudice to refiling, if needed, after resolution of the appeal. The
`related administrative motion is preliminarily GRANTED.
`
`This Order terminates Docket Nos. 45, 46, and 47.
`
`It is therefore ORDERED.
`
`DATED: April 28, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`2
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
`CASE NO. 20-CV-00563-YGR
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. – Ex. 1065, p. 2
`
`