`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`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).
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1066
`Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1066
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1066
`Page 3 of 3
`
`