Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00074-ADA
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY
`ACTION PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION OF RELATED
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
`
`4853-0606-8457 v5
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 1 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`A. A Stay Will Conserve Judicial Resources and Simplify Issues .................................... 5
`B. Apple May Incur Unnecessary Costs and Economic Harm Absent a Stay .................. 9
`C. A Stay Will Not Prejudice Traxcell .............................................................................. 9
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 2 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Adaptix Inc. v. Pantech Wireless, Inc.,
`Case No. 6:13-cv-00778-CMC, 2016 WL 7364674 (E.D. Tex. Jan 12, 2016) .....................4, 8
`
`Astec Am., Inc. v. Power-One,
` Case No. 6:07-cv-00464-JDL, 2008 WL 11441994 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2008) ................7, 8, 9
`
`Carder v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc.,
`595 F. App’x 293 (5th Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................................4
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`
`588 Fed. App’x. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished) ................................................................4
`
`Ikorongo Texas LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.,
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00257-ADA, Doc. No. 104 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2021)..................................5
`
`Lighthouse Consulting Grp., LLC v. Ally Fin. Inc.,
`Case No. 19-cv-00592-ADA, 2020 WL 6365538 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2020) ............... passim
`
`Navistar Leasing Co. v. Tango Transp., LLC,
`Case No. 15-cv-00866-ALM, 2017 WL 87859 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017) ...............................4
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Mary Elle Fashions, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:16-cv-615-JRG, 2016 WL 9558954 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) .....................4, 6, 8
`
`Rotatable Techs. LLC v. Fossil, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:13-cv-00109-JRG, Doc. No. 42 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2013) ...................................8
`
`Sapp v. Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys.,
`406 F. App’x 866 (5th Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................................4
`
`Traxcell Tech., LLC, v. Sprint Commc’s Co. LP,
`Case Nos. 2020-1852, 2020-1854 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...............................................................1, 3
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al.,
`2:17-cv-00718 (E.D. Tex.) .........................................................................................................2
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC,
`6:21-cv-00023-ADA (W.D. Tex.) .............................................................................................2
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks,
`2:17-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex.) .........................................................................................................2
`
`iii
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 3 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks,
`2:17-cv-00044 (E.D. Tex.) .........................................................................................................2
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks,
`2:18-cv-00412-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................2
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC et al.,
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00412-RWS-RSP, Doc. No. 82 (E.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) ................ passim
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co., LP et al.,
`2:17-cv-00719 (E.D. Tex.) .........................................................................................................2
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.,
`2:17-cv-00720 (E.D. Tex.) .........................................................................................................2
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.,
`2:17-cv-00721 (E.D. Tex.) .....................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications LP,
`6:20-cv-01175-ADA (W.D. Tex.) .............................................................................................2
`
`Traxcell Techs., LLC v. AT&T Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00718-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 6006202 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) ..................2
`
`Traxcell Techs., LLC. v. AT&T Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00718-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 6037984 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) ..................2
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Case No. 20-CV-00267-ADA, Doc. No. 38 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2020) ................................5, 8
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 4 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully moves to stay this patent infringement action
`
`filed by Plaintiff Traxcell Technologies, LLC (“Traxcell”) pending the Federal Circuit’s resolution
`
`of Traxcell’s appeals in related actions. See Traxcell Tech., LLC, v. Sprint Commc’s Co. LP, Nos.
`
`2020-1852, 2020-1854 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Those appeals, which are fully briefed and scheduled for
`
`oral arguments on August 5, 2021, involve issues common to both asserted patents in this case,
`
`including the construction of key claim terms.
`
`A stay will promote judicial efficiency without prejudicing Traxcell. Indeed, just two
`
`months ago Traxcell successfully moved to stay its case against Nokia involving the same two
`
`patents asserted against Apple, pending final resolution of the same appeals Apple is citing here.
`
`See Ex. A, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC et al., Case No.
`
`2:18-cv-00412-RWS-RSP, Doc. No. 82 at 9 (E.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) (hereinafter “Motion to
`
`Stay Nokia II”). Though Traxcell refused to agree to staying this case, Traxcell argued a stay was
`
`warranted in Nokia II because (1) “there is no risk of prejudice or hardship from entry of the stay,”
`
`(2) the stay “will promote judicial economy, as some or all disputed issues in the case could be
`
`resolved by the pending Federal Circuit appeal,” (3) the “need for claim construction may be
`
`narrowed or eliminated” entirely, and (4) “[i]f the parties move forward with discovery while the
`
`appeal is pending, the [c]ourt might needlessly spend time litigating discovery disputes that are
`
`mooted by the resolution of key disputes on appeal.” Id. These arguments are equally applicable
`
`here, and the Court should stay this case for the same reasons argued by Traxcell in its successful
`
`bid to stay Nokia II.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`This litigation is one of several related cases filed by Traxcell in this District and in the
`
`1
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 5 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”).1 In each case, Traxcell alleges that certain systems and
`
`methods generally related to providing directional assistance to a mobile device via a wireless
`
`network infringe Traxcell’s patents. With respect to Apple, Traxcell alleges infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,549,388 (the “’388 patent”) and 9,918,196 (the “’196 patent”).
`
`Two of Traxcell’s prior EDTX suits—those against Sprint and Verizon—are particularly
`
`relevant to this motion. In those suits, Traxcell accused certain maps services loaded onto wireless
`
`mobile devices as infringing. During summary judgment, the EDTX court clarified its
`
`constructions for several claim terms from the ’388 patent, as well as the term “location” that
`
`appears in the related ’196 patent at issue in this case. With respect to the ’388 patent, the EDTX
`
`court found that under the plain meaning of the ’388 claims, “(1) [a] wireless communications
`
`network is separate and distinct from [a] wireless mobile communications device, [and] (2) a
`
`network or a second processor within [that] network must determine location” of the wireless
`
`mobile communications device (as opposed to a processor residing within the mobile device
`
`determining its own location). See Traxcell Techs., LLC v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00718-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 6006202, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Verizon
`
`Summary Judgment Order”); see also Traxcell Techs., LLC. v. AT&T Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00718-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 6037984, at *14 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Sprint
`
`
`1 The cases that are currently pending include: Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia
`Solutions and Networks, 2:18-cv-00412-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Traxcell Technologies, LLC v.
`Nokia Solutions and Networks, 2:17-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex.); Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia
`Solutions and Networks, 2:17-cv-00044 (E.D. Tex.); Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et
`al., 2:17-cv-00718 (E.D. Tex.); Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co., LP et
`al., 2:17-cv-00719 (E.D. Tex.); Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc., 2:17-cv-00720
`(E.D. Tex.); Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al., 2:17-cv-00721
`(E.D. Tex.); Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-00023-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications LP, 6:20-cv-01175-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`2
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 6 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`Summary Judgment Order”). Based on these constructions, the EDTX court entered summary
`
`judgment of no infringement in favor of defendants. Verizon Summary Judgment Order at *6-8;
`
`Sprint Summary Judgment Order at *17-18.
`
`Furthermore, the EDTX court construed the term “location” in patents related to the ’196
`
`patent to mean a “location that is not merely a position in a grid pattern.” Sprint Summary
`
`Judgment Order at *10-11. Based on this construction, the EDTX court entered summary judgment
`
`of no infringement in favor of Sprint. See id. The patents with the “location” terms are family
`
`members of the ’196 patent asserted against Apple and share the same specification as the ‘196
`
`patent. The term “location” appears throughout each of the independent claims of the ’196 patent
`
`asserted against Apple. See Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. A.
`
`Traxcell appealed the EDTX court’s claim constructions and findings of no infringement
`
`to the Federal Circuit. See Traxcell Tech., LLC, v. Sprint Commc’s Co. LP, Nos. 2020-1852, 2020-
`
`1854 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The appeals are fully briefed and scheduled for oral argument on August 5,
`
`2021. According to the Federal Circuit’s median time from oral argument to disposition, the
`
`appeals will likely be decided by early November 2021 if the decisions are precedential, or by
`
`early September if nonprecedential.2
`
`Just recently, Traxcell jointly moved to stay the Nokia II case pending resolution of these
`
`appeals. See Ex. A, Motion to Stay Nokia II. The Nokia II case involves the same two patents
`
`asserted against Apple. See id. The court in Nokia II granted Traxcell’s motion and stayed that
`
`case pending final resolution of these appeals. See Ex. C, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia
`
`
`2 See Ex. B, D. Bagatell, Fed. Cir. Patent Decisions in 2019: An Empirical Review, Law360
`(Jan. 9, 2020), available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1232623/fed-circ-patent-decisions-
`in-2019-an-empirical-review (“The disposition backlog (measured from oral argument to date of
`decision) improved somewhat in 2019, with precedential opinions taking a median of 2.9 months
`and nonprecedential opinions taking a median of only 1.2 months.”).
`
`3
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 7 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`Solutions and Networks US LLC et al., 2:18-cv-00412-RWS-RSP, Doc. No. 84 (E.D. Tex. May
`
`19, 2021).
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Granting a request for a stay “is a matter of judgment” inherently within the power of the
`
`district court. Carder v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 595 F. App’x 293, 300 (5th Cir. 2014). The district
`
`court has broad discretion to enter a stay pending decision on a dispositive motion. Id. (“We have
`
`held that a trial court may properly exercise its discretion to stay discovery pending a decision on
`
`a dispositive motion”); see also Sapp v. Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys., 406 F. App’x 866, 870
`
`(5th Cir. 2010) (upholding trial court’s decision to stay discovery until a pending summary
`
`judgment motion was resolved to avoid “wasteful” discovery).
`
`“A court must weigh the competing interests of the court, the parties, and counsel when
`
`deciding whether to enter a stay.” Lighthouse Consulting Grp., LLC v. Ally Fin. Inc., Case No. 19-
`
`cv-00592-ADA, 2020 WL 6365538, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2020). Specifically, the trial court
`
`should consider: (1) “prejudice to the non-moving party if the stay is granted,” (2) “hardship on
`
`the movant if no stay is entered,” and (3) “judicial economy.” Navistar Leasing Co. v. Tango
`
`Transp., LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00866-ALM, 2017 WL 87859, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017).
`
`“Stays are favored in the interest of conserving judicial and party resources, and avoiding
`
`duplicitous litigation.” Nichia Corp. v. Mary Elle Fashions, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-615-JRG, 2016
`
`WL 9558954, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) (citing In re Google Inc., 588 Fed. App’x. 988, 990
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished)). Stays, like the one requested here, where a mere three or four
`
`month pause facilitates guidance from the Federal Circuit are particularly favored. See Adaptix
`
`Inc. v. Pantech Wireless, Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-00778-CMC, 2016 WL 7364674, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Jan 12, 2016) (granting stay pending Federal Circuit appeal of a related case as “promot[ing]
`
`judicial efficiency and conserve[ing] the parties’ resources”).
`
`4
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 8 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should stay this case pending resolution of Traxcell’s appeals of the Verizon
`
`and Sprint decisions for the same reasons Traxcell argued in its successful bid to stay the Nokia II
`
`case. Namely, a stay will simplify the issues for claim construction, clarify non-infringement
`
`positions involving similar accused products, and promote judicial economy. Furthermore, a brief
`
`stay will not prejudice Traxcell or cause it any undue hardship. A stay here would be consistent
`
`with the practice of this Court to promote judicial economy, avoid multiple courts considering the
`
`same issues simultaneously, and help avoid the possibility of inconsistent rulings.3 See, e.g.,
`
`Lighthouse Consulting, Case No. W-19-cv-00592-ADA, 2020 WL 6365538, at *1 (sua sponte
`
`staying case pending entry of a claim construction order in earlier-filed EDTX suits involving the
`
`same patents); Ex. D, VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-00267-ADA, Doc.
`
`No. 38 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2020) (staying several cases pending a different district court’s ruling
`
`on motions to dismiss related cases); Ikorongo Texas LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., Case No. 6:20-
`
`cv-00257-ADA, Doc. No. 104 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2021) (motion to stay discovery pending the
`
`resolution of mandamus proceedings before the Federal Circuit on the issue of transfer;
`
`subsequently granted by text order).
`
`A.
`
`A Stay Will Conserve Judicial Resources and Simplify Issues
`
`A stay will simplify the issues in this case and conserve judicial resources because the
`
`Federal Circuit’s ruling on the district court’s claim construction and noninfringement decisions
`
`will impact this case regardless of how these issues are resolved. As acknowledged by Traxcell in
`
`its own motion to stay Nokia II, the appeals seek to overturn the district court’s finding that each
`
`claim of the ’388 patent requires that a processor within the wireless network determines the
`
`
`3 Google and Verizon do not oppose staying their related cases before this Court should
`Apple’s motion be granted.
`
`5
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 9 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`location of a mobile device. See Ex. A, Motion to Stay Nokia II at 7. Whether the Federal Circuit
`
`affirms or alters this construction, the Federal Circuit’s ruling will provide guidance on and
`
`streamline claim construction issues for the parties and the Court at least as to the ’388 patent. See
`
`Lighthouse Consulting, Case No. W-19-CV-00592-ADA, 2020 WL 6365538, at *1 (finding that
`
`staying the case pending entry of another court’s claim construction order would “reduce the
`
`number of claim construction issues, if not eliminate them all together”); Nichia, No. 2:16-CV-
`
`615-JRG, 2016 WL 9558954, at *2 (staying litigation pending Federal Circuit appeal of a related
`
`case). Moreover, if the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s decision of no infringement, this
`
`could potentially result in an early determination of no infringement here if, for example, Apple
`
`shows that its accused Apple Maps products operate in the same manner as the maps products at
`
`issue in the Sprint and Verizon cases. Even if the noninfringement decision is reversed, the Federal
`
`Circuit’s decision will eliminate potential noninfringement positions from this case.
`
`A stay will also conserve resources spent on the ’196 patent. Traxcell acknowledged in its
`
`joint motion to stay Nokia II that “other patents being appealed, including the ‘024, ‘320, and ‘284
`
`patents, are related to the . . . ‘196 patent[] asserted in this case.” Ex. A, Motion to Stay Nokia II
`
`at 7. The “location” term that formed the basis for the EDTX court’s finding of no infringement,
`
`the construction of which is a central issue on appeal, appears in each independent claim of the
`
`’196 patent asserted against Apple. Thus, as Traxcell admits, “[r]esolution of the disputed
`
`construction[] of ‘location’ . . . will impact how the parties litigate this case, and could narrow this
`
`litigation.” Id.
`
`Courts routinely grant stays based on similar facts. In Lighthouse Consulting, shortly after
`
`pleadings motions were fully briefed, this Court stayed several cases pending the entry of a claim
`
`construction order by the EDTX involving the same patents filed in earlier suits. Lighthouse
`
`6
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 10 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`Consulting, Case No. W-19-cv-00592-ADA, 2020 WL 6365538, at *1. In granting the stay, this
`
`Court found “there are a particularly large number of cases” that could be impacted by the EDTX
`
`claim construction order. Id. This Court also found that the EDTX court’s claim construction order
`
`would likely issue prior to the Markman hearing in that case, so staying the case “will, at a
`
`minimum, reduce the number of claim construction issues, if not eliminate them altogether.” Id.
`
`The parties will thus benefit, this Court reasoned, “by avoiding parallel, potentially duplicative
`
`Markman briefing” and by “having fewer—if any—claim construction issues to actually brief.”
`
`Id.
`
`Here, as in Lighthouse Consulting, pleadings motions were recently briefed and no
`
`Markman hearing has been set. A stay at this early stage will thus avoid relitigating substantive
`
`issues and unnecessary discovery related to claim construction of disputed claim terms currently
`
`before the Federal Circuit. Furthermore, given the likely similarities in noninfringement positions
`
`between the accused map products in each of Traxcell’s suits against Apple, Verizon, and Sprint,
`
`staying this case pending appeal has the potential to simplify even more issues than those
`
`considered in Lighthouse Consulting.
`
`Lighthouse Consulting is consistent with recent holdings on the precise issue involved here.
`
`For instance, in Astec Am., Inc. v. Power-One, the plaintiff filed for a stay pending a Federal Circuit
`
`appeal of a parallel case involving claim construction and validity issues concerning the asserted
`
`patents. Case No. 6:07-cv-00464-JDL, 2008 WL 11441994 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2008). In granting
`
`the motion to stay, the court found that “any change in the claim construction order from the prior
`
`litigation . . . could have a dramatic effect on how the parties conduct discovery and prepare for
`
`trial.” Id. at *3. The court also noted that “[s]hould the Federal Circuit alter the prior claim
`
`construction opinion or reverse a ruling on any of the motions pursuing the invalidity arguments,
`
`7
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 11 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`the patents-at-issue could ultimately be rendered invalid, and the present litigation would become
`
`moot.” Id. Finally, the court stated that “[c]ontrolling litigation expenses and conservation of
`
`judicial resources serves not only the parties and the Court, but also the public as a whole.” Id.
`
`Here, as in Astec, multiple issues currently on appeal may have a “dramatic effect on how
`
`the parties conduct discovery and prepare for trial.” Id. at *3 In particular, the construction of
`
`“location” appearing in the ’196 patent may be dispositive that Apple’s accused products do not
`
`infringe for the same reasons the map products accused in Traxcell’s suit against Sprint were found
`
`not to infringe related patents. Likewise, the Federal Circuit’s decision on the ’388 patent may
`
`confirm that claims asserted against Apple cannot be infringed unless a processor within the
`
`wireless network determines the location of a mobile device. And while invalidity of the patents
`
`asserted against Apple is not subject to the pending appeals, central claim constructions and
`
`noninfringement issues will be decided by the Federal Circuit that may be dispositive. Pausing this
`
`case for three to four months allowing the resolution of the Federal Circuit appeals will therefore
`
`conserve judicial resources, control litigation expenses, and serve the public interest. See Astec,
`
`2008 WL 11441994, at *3 (finding stays are favored in the interest of “controlling litigation
`
`expenses and conserving judicial resources” and avoiding “costly duplicative litigation”).4
`
`Moreover, staying this case pending resolution of the Federal Circuit’s claim construction decision
`
`is consistent with this Court’s Order Governing Patent Proceedings, which defers discovery until
`
`
`4 Other decisions are in accord. See Nichia, Case No. 2:16-cv- 615-JRG, 2016 WL 9558954, at *1
`(staying case pending resolution of a Federal Circuit appeal involving issues of claim construction
`and validity); Ex. D, VoIP-Pal.Com, Case No. 20-cv-00267-ADA, Doc. No. 38 (staying several
`cases pending a different district court’s ruling on motions to dismiss related cases); Rotatable
`Techs. LLC v. Fossil, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00109-JRG, Doc. No. 42 at 2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 26,
`2013) (“This Court sees the wisdom in conserving its resources while key issues in this case await
`dispositive treatment from the Federal Circuit.”); Adaptix, 2016 WL 7364674, at *3 (granting stay
`due to pending Federal Circuit appeal that would resolve an issue preclusion motion).
`
`8
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 12 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`after claim construction is resolved. See Sample Order Governing Patent Proceedings – Patent
`
`Case, OGP Version 3.2 at 2 (W.D. Tex.). This factor weighs in favor of staying this case.
`
`B.
`
`Apple May Incur Unnecessary Costs and Economic Harm Absent a Stay
`
`Without a stay, there is a high likelihood that the parties will incur unnecessary costs by
`
`litigating issues that the Federal Circuit will resolve or render moot. See, e.g., Astec, 2008 WL
`
`11441994, at *3 (“Litigation is expensive, and proceeding during the pendency of the appeal poses
`
`a great risk for significant economic harm for both parties.”). As explained above, the same claim
`
`construction issues are present in this case as those on appeal. Both parties risk wasting significant
`
`resources if they are forced to brief constructions that the Federal Circuit will inevitably resolve in
`
`just a few months from now. Under the District’s limits on pages and claim terms this would
`
`further force the parties to unnecessarily devote briefing space on claims already construed or even
`
`sacrifice other terms not addressed in the current appeals. Moreover, moving forward with
`
`discovery, even if only initial technical and financial productions, will cause the parties to spend
`
`time and resources that could otherwise be avoided if the Federal Circuit affirms the EDTX court’s
`
`findings of no infringement. For example, if Apple shows the accused Apple Maps services operate
`
`identically to the services at issue on appeal with respect to the allegedly patented features, the
`
`parties could potentially address and resolve infringement early in the case and forego discovery
`
`on issues unrelated to infringement. And even if the Federal Circuit reverses the EDTX court’s
`
`noninfringement decision, the Federal Circuit will provide valuable guidance on claim scope that
`
`will allow the parties to streamline discovery. As such, this factor also weighs in favor of staying
`
`the litigation.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Will Not Prejudice Traxcell
`
`Traxcell also will not be prejudiced by a brief stay of this action while the Federal Circuit
`
`9
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 14 of 16
`
`appeals proceed to conclusion. First, Traxcell recently acknowledged “there is no risk of prejudice
`
`or hardship from entry of the stay” of the Nokia II suit, which involves the same two patents
`
`asserted in this case but has been pending since 2018. Ex. A, Motion to Stay Nokia II at 5, 9.
`
`Second, the stay is of a limited duration. The appeals are fully briefed and scheduled for oral
`
`argument on August 5, 2021. According to the Federal Circuit’s median time from oral argument
`
`to disposition, the appeals will likely be decided by early November 2021 if the decisions are
`
`precedential, or by early September if nonprecedential.5 Finally, as Traxcell readily admitted in
`
`Nokia II, “[b]oth parties will benefit from a temporary stay of proceedings until the appeals are
`
`resolved, as they can avoid litigating issues that may be mooted by the Court’s ruling.” Ex. A,
`
`Motion to Stay Nokia II at 4; see also Lighthouse Consulting, Case No. W-19-cv-00592-ADA,
`
`2020 WL 6365538, at *2 (finding a stay will not prejudice the plaintiff where the plaintiff agreed
`
`to a similar stay in separate proceedings and where a stay could reduce the expenditure of resources
`
`on Markman issues). Traxcell cannot reasonably assert that it will be prejudiced by a stay here,
`
`but not in Nokia II, where that case has been pending for approximately three years and involves
`
`the same two patents at issue in this case. Thus, the same reasoning argued by Traxcell in support
`
`of staying Nokia II demonstrates that Traxcell will suffer no prejudice by staying this matter for a
`
`relatively short duration while key issues in this case await dispositive treatment from the Federal
`
`Circuit.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests the Court to stay this action until
`
`the Federal Circuit issues a ruling on the pending appeals.
`
`
`
`
`5 See Ex. B (“The disposition backlog (measured from oral argument to date of decision)
`improved somewhat in 2019, with precedential opinions taking a median of 2.9 months and
`nonprecedential opinions taking a median of only 1.2 months.”).
`
`10
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas State Bar No. 16584975
`Kelly Ransom
`Texas State Bar No. 24109427
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 495-6429
`Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`Email: kelly.ransom@kellyhart.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`Dated: July 15, 2021
`
`Sharon A. Israel
`Texas State Bar No. 00789394
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tel: (713) 546-5689
`Email: sisrael@shb.com
`
`B. Trent Webb (pro hac vice)
`Lauren Douville (pro hac vice)
`Lydia C. Raw (pro hac vice)
`Mark D. Schafer (pro hac vice)
`Ryan Schletzbaum (pro hac vice)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613
`Tel: (816) 474-6550
`Email: bwebb@shb.com
`Email: ldouville@shb.com
`Email: lraw@shb.com
`Email: mschafer@shb.com
`Email: rschletzbaum@shb.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 15 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00074-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/15/21 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 28, 2021, Apple’s counsel conferred in good faith with counsel
`
`for Plaintiff pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(g), regarding the substantive matters presented in this
`
`motion. On June 17, 2021, counsel for plaintiff informed Apple’s counsel that it does not agree to
`
`the relief sought. Accordingly, this motion is submitted to the Court for decision.
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing
`
`document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Civil Rule CV-5(b)(1) on July 15, 2021.
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Apple Exhibit 1015
`Page 16 of 16
`
`