Case 3:20-cv-08492-RS Document 34 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`In re EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`Case Nos. 3:19-cv-06559-RS
`3:20-cv-06152-RS
`3:20-cv-08297-RS
`3:20-cv-08321-RS
`3:20-cv-08335-RS
`3:20-cv-08339-RS
`3:20-cv-08461-RS
`3:20-cv-08491-RS
`3:20-cv-08492-RS
`3:21-cv-01145-RS
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
`DENYING IN PART STAY MOTIONS
`
`In the interests of efficiency and to avoid delaying the parties’ efforts to comply with the
`
`prior order directing them to coordinate claim construction in these matters, the motions to stay
`
`will be decided without reply briefing or oral argument. It is apparent there is a basis to treat the
`
`five patents at issue across these cases in two separate groups. The ’397 patent and the ’168 patent
`
`will hereinafter be referred to as the Rempel patents, after the sole named inventor. The ’755
`
`patent, the ’287 patent, and the ’044 patent will be referred to as the RCB patents, after the initials
`
`of the three named inventors.
`
`The Rempel patents are presently subject to reexamination proceedings, and the one case
`
`in this court involving only those patents, X.Commerce, Inc. (Magento) v. Express Mobile, Inc.,
`
`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
`
`SAP Exhibit 1023
`SAP v. Express Mobile, Inc.
`IPR2021-01146
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08492-RS Document 34 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-2605- RS, is temporarily stayed for that and other reasons. Claim construction
`
`proceedings as to the Rempel patents were completed in the X.Commerce matter.
`
`Good cause appearing, further claim construction of the Rempel patents will not go
`
`forward in any of these cases at the present time, and the stay motions are granted to that extent.
`
`The parties are relieved from any remaining deadlines relating to claim construction as to the
`
`Rempel patents only. The status of this stay will be reviewed on or before November 30, 2021 in
`
`conjunction with further consideration of the status in the X.Commerce matter. The parties need
`
`not separately file any status updates in these cases, however. Additionally, the parties should not
`
`assume the stays in these cases necessarily will remain tied to the status of the stay in
`
`X.Commerce, as some of the relevant considerations differ.
`
`
`
`The stay motions are denied as to the RCB patents. The parties should proceed with the
`
`efforts to comply with the order requiring coordination of claim proceedings as to those patents.
`
`The parties may now presume that one joint claim construction hearing will be held as to the RCB
`
`patents, and that another joint claim construction hearing will be held as to the Rempel patents at a
`
`later time, after the stay has been lifted.
`
`In both the RCB patents claim construction hearing and the subsequent Rempel patents
`
`claim construction hearing the parties will be expected to make every effort to comply with the ten
`
`terms limit—i.e., ten terms for the RCB patents and ten terms for the Rempel patents. Again, some
`
`flexibility may be available in the event differences among defendants’ accused instrumentalities
`
`make different claim terms important to some defendants.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 2, 2021
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`RICHARD SEEBORG
`Chief United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`
`CASE NO. 17-cv-02605-RS
`
`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
`
`IPR2021-01146 Page 00002
`
`