`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ORTHOACCEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PROPEL ORTHODONTICS, LLC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-03801-RS
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING STAY
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), defendants’ motion to stay pending inter partes
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`review (“IPR”) is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for August
`
`16, 2018 is vacated. The parties are in general dispute that a stay should be granted; the disputes
`
`lie only as to its scope and length. Good cause appearing, this action is hereby stayed pending
`
`resolution of the IPR and any appeals taken therefrom. If plaintiff believes that the stay should be
`
`lifted prior to disposition of any appeals, given the particular circumstances that exist at that time,
`
`it may so move. Finally, if plaintiff has a good faith basis to seek leave to amend the complaint
`
`during the pendency of the stay, it may do so without separately moving for relief from the stay.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2018
`
`______________________________________
`
`RICHARD SEEBORG
`United States District Judge
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Exhibit 1031
`Page 01 of 01
`
`