`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 44 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach (SBN 142549 / scherkenbach@fr.com)
`Adam J. Kessel (Admitted pro hac vice / kessel@fr.com)
`Proshanto Mukherji (Admitted pro hac vice / mukherji@fr.com)
`Jeffrey Shneidman (Admitted pro hac vice / shneidman@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`Michael R. Headley (SBN 220834 / headley@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK INC., and TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK INC., AND
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER RE:
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,
`OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOT TO DISMISS
`Case No 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1026-002
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 44 Filed 03/30/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the
`
`Alternative, to Stay First Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 33,
`
`“the Motion”). The Court finds that a limited stay of Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim
`
`(Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief) is more efficient and appropriate than dismissal of that claim.
`
`See, e.g., Google Inc. v. Eolas Techs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78842, at *24 (N.D. Cal. June
`
`16, 2016).
`
`Finding good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,691,429 (Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief) is STAYED until resolution of the 28
`
`10
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) transfer issues raised in the Motion to Transfer filed in Triller, Inc. v. Bytedance
`
`11
`
`Ltd. et al., No. 6:20-cv-693 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2020), Dkt. No. 30 in that case.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Dated:
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER RE OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOT TO DISMISS
`Case No 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`The parties shall file a notice with this Court of that decision within 7 days of its issuance.
`
`March 30, 2021
`
`