`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
