IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-00354-JRG
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-00228-JRG
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`§§§§§§
`
`INC.,
`UNILOC USA,
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
` UNILOC
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. et al,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the Motion to Stay filed by Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, “Uniloc”) (Dkt. No. 92). The Court, having considered the Motion
`
`and the briefing, finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
`
`The district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to
`
`stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). See also Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849
`
`F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and
`
`stay proceedings, including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO
`
`reexamination.” (internal citation omitted)). How to best manage the Court’s docket “calls for the
`
`exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936).
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2011
`1 of 3
`
`

`

`“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 Techs. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No.
`
`2:13-cv-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.). “Based on
`
`th[ese] factors, courts determine whether the benefits of a stay outweigh the inherent costs of
`
`postponing resolution of the litigation.” Id.
`
`Uniloc’s Motion explains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has instituted
`
`review of every asserted claim of all patents asserted against the Defendants—
`
`(Dkt. No. 92 at 1–2.) Having considered the factors
`
`outlined above, the Court is persuaded that the benefits of a stay outweigh the costs of postponing
`
`resolution of the litigation in this case. Here, the patent claims have not yet been construed by the
`
`Court, and discovery is not yet complete. Moreover, even 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
`
`proceedings will streamline the scope of this case to an appreciable extent.
`
`Accordingly, Uniloc’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 92) is GRANTED. It is therefore
`
`ORDERED that the above-captioned cases are STAYED pending the PTAB’s final decisions in
`
`IPR2016-01756, IPR2017-00058, IPR2017-00198, IPR2017-00597, IPR2017-01685, IPR2017-
`
`1683, IPR2017-1684. (Id. at 1.)
`
`The Parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report with the Court to inform the Court
`
`regarding the results of the pending IPRs. Such report shall be filed within ten (10) days of the last
`
`decision from the PTAB in the above referenced IPRs. A courtesy copy of such joint status report
`
`2
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2011
`2 of 3
`
`

`

`shall be delivered to chambers within the above time period. Such report shall be joined in by lead
`
`counsel (and local counsel to the extent local counsel have appeared herein) for each party.
`
`This stay is effective but without prejudice to Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.’s
`
`pending challenge to venue based on a forum selection clause. (2:17-cv-228, Dkt. No. 24.)
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of February, 2018.
`
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`
`3
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2011
`3 of 3
`
`