`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT,
`
`UAB’s (collectively, “Defendants” or “Teso”) Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Reviews (the
`
`“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 124). In the Motion, Defendants ask the Court to stay all action in the above-
`
`captioned matter pending the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) inter partes review of
`
`the patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Luminati Networks Ltd. (“Luminati”) has asserted three patents against
`
`Defendants: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,469,614 (the “’614 Patent”); 10,257,319 (the “’319 Patent”); and
`
`10,484,510 (the “’510 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 14).
`
`Defendants filed petitions for inter partes review on July 14, 2020, July 28, 2020, and September
`
`4, 2020, challenging all three Asserted Patents.1 (Dkt. No. 124 at 2-3). The PTAB will issue its
`
`institution decisions no later than January 26, 2021 for the ’319 Patent, February 22, 2021 for the
`
`’510 Patent, and March 9, 2021 for the ’614 Patent. (Id. at 3).
`
`
`1 IPR2020-01266 (’319 Patent IPR); IPR2020-01358 (’510 Patent IPR); IPR2020-01506 (’614
`Patent IPR).
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1066
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`
`
`
`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). 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).
`
`“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.
`
`Where a motion to stay is filed before the PTAB institutes any proceeding, courts often
`
`withhold a ruling pending action on the petition by the PTAB or deny the motion without prejudice
`
`to refiling in the event that the PTAB institutes a proceeding. VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com,
`
`Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Checkfree Corp. v. Metavante Corp., No. 12-
`
`cv-15, 2014 WL 466023, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2014)); see also NFC Techs., 2015 WL
`
`1069111, at *6. Indeed, this Court has a consistent practice of denying motions to stay when the
`
`PTAB has yet to institute post-grant proceedings. Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA,
`
`No. 2:13-cv-1047-WCB, 2015 WL 1069179, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.) (“This
`
`Court’s survey of cases from the Eastern District of Texas shows that when the PTAB has not yet
`
`acted on a petition for inter partes review, the courts have uniformly denied motions for a stay.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Considering these circumstances, the Court concludes that the Defendants’ motion is
`
`premature, and a stay of these proceedings in advance of the PTAB’s decision on whether or not
`
`to institute inter partes review of any of the Asserted Patents should be denied. Accordingly, the
`
`Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling of the same, which shall be permitted
`
`within fourteen (14) days following the PTAB’s institution decision regarding the last of the
`
`patents-in-suit to be acted upon by the PTAB.
`
`So Ordered this
`Oct 29, 2020
`
`3
`
`
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
