Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`Irene Yang (SBN 245464)
`irene.yang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94104-1715
`Telephone: (415) 772-1200
`Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
`
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`Fred I. Williams (pro hac vice)
`Michael Simons (pro hac vice)
`The Littlefield Building
`601 Congress Avenue, Suite 600
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`
`Todd E. Landis (pro hac vice)
`2633 McKinney Avenue, Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Telephone: (512) 543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`John Wittenzellner (pro hac vice)
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (512) 543-1373
`johnw@wsltrial.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant DROPBOX, INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-00062-JSC
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Hearing Date: April 27, 2023
`Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: Courtroom 8 – 19th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
`
`
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`HEIDI L. KEEFE (178960)
`(hkeefe@cooley.com)
`REUBEN H. CHEN (228725)
`(rchen@cooley.com)
`LOWELL D. MEAD (223989)
`(lmead@cooley.com)
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone: (650) 843-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
`
`NAINA SONI (pro hac vice pending)
`(nsoni@cooley.com
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004-2400
`Telephone: (202) 842-7800
`Facsimile: (202) 842-7899
`
`Attorneys for Defendant BOX, INC.
`
`TOPIA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`DROPBOX, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`TOPIA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`BOX, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 1 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 15
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ........................................................................................ 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 2
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 4
`IV.
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The Stage of the Case Favors a Stay. .......................................................... 5
`B.
`IPRs Will Simplify the Issues for Trial. ...................................................... 7
`C.
`A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Plaintiff. .............................................. 8
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`
`
`i.
`
`
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 2 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Anza Tech., Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Components Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-07289-LHK, 2018 WL 4859167 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) ................................. 5
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Barbaro Techs., LLC v. Niantic, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-02955-RS, 2019 WL 13232979 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) ................................. 5, 7
`
`Brixham Sols. Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-00616-JCS, 2014 WL 1677991 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) ................................. 5, 7
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04034-SBA, 2014 WL 5477796 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014) .................................... 7
`
`Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04613-BLF, 2014 WL 6068407 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) .................................... 7
`
`Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc.,
`No. C 19-02269 JSW, 2019 WL 9100404 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019) ............................. 5, 8, 10
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. C 13-4204 SI, 2014 WL 261837 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2014) ............................................... 4
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Yelp Inc.,
`No. C 13-03587-DMR, 2013 WL 6672451 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) .................................... 5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`139 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................ 2, 4, 6
`
`Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-00876-RS, 2015 WL 13727876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015) ................................ 5, 9
`
`Largan Precision Co. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 21-cv-09138-JSW, 2022 WL 2954935 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2022) ............................. 4, 6, 8
`
`Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-01852-TLT, Dkt. 74 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2023) ................................................ passim
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-05920-JSW, 2018 WL 6972999 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) ............................. 4, 6, 8
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corp.,
`No. 4:20-cv-02354-JSW, 2021 WL 4027370 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2021) ................... 4, 6, 9, 10
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................. 4, 6, 9
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 5:13-CV-01356-EJD, 2014 WL 116340 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) ........................... 4, 7, 9
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 11-CV-02168-EJD, 2011 WL 4802958 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011) ................................... 6
`
`Sec. People, Inc. v. Ojmar US, LLC,
`No. 14-cv-04968-HSG, 2015 WL 3453780 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2015).................................... 5
`
`Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc.,
`450 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .................................................................................... 9
`
`Topia Technology, Inc. v. Egnyte, Inc.,
`No. 1:21-cv-01821-CJB, Dkt. 24 (D. Del. May 12, 2022) ..................................................... 10
`
`Traverse LLC v. Amprius, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-00484-RS, 2020 WL 6820942 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) .................................... 5, 6
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Zomm, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`391 F. Supp. 3d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................... 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(e)(2) ........................................................................................................................... 8, 10
`§ 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 4 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 27, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this
`matter may be heard, in this Court, located at San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 8 – 19th Floor,
`450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 9410, Defendants Box, Inc. (“Box”) and Dropbox,
`Inc. (“Dropbox”) (collectively “Defendants”), will and hereby do move for an Order granting
`motion to stay pending inter partes review (“IPR”).
`Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay the above-captioned cases pending
`resolution of the IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) involving
`the asserted patents including any appeals. Plaintiff Topia Technology, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) opposes
`this motion.
`This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith, and
`upon such other and further matters, papers, and arguments as may be submitted to the Court at or
`before the hearing on this Motion.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`All of the asserted claims of all six asserted patents are subject to pending IPR invalidity
`challenges. One IPR has already been instituted, and institution decisions will be issued on the
`remaining six IPRs in just a few months (by August 2023). Defendants respectfully request that
`the Court stay these actions pending the completion of these IPRs through appeals to preserve the
`Court’s and the parties’ resources while the Patent Office conducts its review. Each of the three
`factors courts consider in granting such stays weighs heavily in favor of a stay. Courts in this
`District often grant stays under circumstances like those present here.
`First, these cases are in their infancy, and no trial date has been set. After transfer to this
`District, these cases have effectively restarted, with Plaintiff not even due to serve its infringement
`contentions under the Patent Local Rules until three weeks from now (April 13, 2023). All of the
`typical early case activity remains to be completed under the schedule in these cases, including
`
`
`1.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 5 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`invalidity contentions (to be served May 31, 2023), claim construction (proposed terms to be
`exchanged on June 13, 2023), the claim construction hearing (yet to be scheduled), fact discovery,
`expert discovery, dispositive motions, pre-trial proceedings, and trial.
`Second, a stay will simplify the issues in these cases. The PTAB has already instituted one
`IPR brought by a third party (Unified Patents, LLC) on one of the asserted patents, with a final
`decision due by November 2023. That patent shares the same specification and substantially
`overlapping claim scope with the other five related patents. In addition, Defendants have filed six
`of their own IPRs against every asserted claim of all the asserted patents; Plaintiff’s preliminary
`responses to the petitions are due in May 2023; and the PTAB’s institution decisions are due in
`August 2023, merely months away. “Were the Court to deny the stay until a decision on institution
`is made, the parties and the Court would expend significant resources on issues that could
`eventually be mooted by the IPR decision.” Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1032,
`1037 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
`Third, Plaintiff cannot show that it would be unduly prejudiced by a stay. Plaintiff waited
`for years before filing suit, is not a competitor of Defendants, and does not appear to practice its
`patents in any current commercial product. To the extent any claims were to survive IPR and
`Plaintiff were to prevail in litigation, Plaintiff would be able to recover any applicable money
`damages at that time.
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff filed two separate suits on December 29, 2021 in the Western District of Texas,
`separately claiming infringement by Dropbox and Box of the same six asserted patents, U.S. Patent
`Nos. 9,143,561 (the “ʼ561 patent”), 10,067,942 (the “’942 patent”), 10,289,607 (the “’607 patent”),
`10,642,787 (the “’787 patent”), 10,754,823 (the “’823 patent”), 11,003,622 (the “’622 patent”)
`(collectively “the asserted patents”). The patents all purportedly claim priority to the same
`provisional application filed in November 2007, and they all share substantially the same
`specification. The patents all issued years ago, between September 2015 and May 2021. Plaintiff
`accuses products offered by Defendants that were on the market for many years before Plaintiff
`filed these actions. (See generally Dkt. 1 (Dropbox case), Dkt. 1 (Box case).)
`
`
`2.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 6 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`On November 17, 2022, third-party Unified Patents, LLC filed an IPR against the ʼ942
`patent, challenging all asserted claims from the ʼ942 patent, and the PTAB instituted that IPR on
`November 17, 2022. See IPR2022-00782 (filed April 15, 2022). The final hearing (if requested)
`is scheduled for August 22, 2023. Id., Paper 18 (Nov. 17, 2022). A final decision in that IPR is
`presumptively due by November 17, 2023. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
`On January 4 and 5, 2023, Defendants jointly filed IPR petitions challenging each of the
`fifty-six (56) claims asserted by Plaintiff in both cases. See IPR2023-00427, -00429, -00430, -
`00431, -00432, and -00433. Defendants’ IPR petitions present entirely different invalidity
`challenges than the Unified Patents IPR. The chart below provides the filing dates and presumptive
`deadlines for Plaintiff’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response and the PTAB’s institution decision
`in each IPR:
`IPR
`
`Asserted
`Patent
`
`Filing Date
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Preliminary
`Response Due
`August 9, 2023
`May 9, 2023
`January 4, 2023
`ʼ561 patent
`2023-00427
`August 9, 2023
`May 9, 2023
`January 5, 2023
`ʼ607 patent
`2023-00429
`August 10, 2023
`May 10, 2023
`January 5, 2023
`ʼ622 patent
`2023-00430
`August 14, 2023
`May 15, 2023
`January 4, 2023
`ʼ787 patent
`2023-00431
`August 14, 2023
`May 15, 2023
`January 4, 2023
`ʼ823 patent
`2023-00432
`August 9, 2023
`May 9, 2023
`January 4, 2023
`ʼ942 patent
`2023-00433
`On January 4, 2023, the court in the Western District of Texas granted Defendants’ motions
`to transfer venue to this District. While the parties had initially exchanged infringement and
`invalidity contentions (which specified the claims that Plaintiff asserts in these actions) before the
`actions were transferred to this District, those contentions will be superseded by updated
`infringement and invalidity contentions the parties will serve under the Patent Local Rules of this
`District. In view of the parties’ dispute regarding claim construction proceedings in these actions,
`the Court set the following interim case schedule:
`
`Institution
`Decision Due
`
`Disclosure of infringement contentions; Plaintiff’s initial
`production (Pat. L.R. 3-1 and 3-2)
`Defendant’s invalidity contentions; Defendant’s initial
`production (Pat. L.R. 3-3 and 3-4)
`Exchange of proposed terms for construction (Pat. L.R. 4-1)
`Case Management Conference
`(Dkt. 112 (Box).)
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`April 13, 2023
`
`May 31, 2023
`
`June 13, 2023
`June 21, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 7 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Courts in this District recognize “a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay”
`pending IPR. Zomm, LLC v. Apple Inc., 391 F. Supp. 3d 946, 956 (N.D. Cal. 2019). This policy
`is consistent with the courts’ “inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings,
`including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” Ethicon, Inc.
`v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). “[J]udicial efficiency and
`the desire to avoid inconsistent results may, after a careful consideration of the relevant factors,
`counsel in favor of a limited stay, even before the PTAB has acted on a petition for IPR.” Finjan,
`139 F. Supp. 3d at 1035; see also Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corp., No. 17-cv-05920-JSW, 2018
`WL 6972999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) (“Oyster Optics I”) (“it is not uncommon for [courts]
`to grant stays pending reexamination prior to the PTO deciding to reexamine the patent.”) (citing
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. C 13-4204 SI, 2014 WL 261837, at *3 (N.D.
`Cal. Jan. 23, 2014). Indeed, in creating the IPR process, Congress sought “to establish a more
`efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and
`counterproductive litigation costs and to create a timely, cost-effective alternate to litigation.”
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:13-CV-01356-EJD, 2014 WL 116340, at *2
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (“Facebook”) (internal quotations omitted).
`In considering a motion to stay pending IPR, courts in this District consider three factors:
`(1) the stage of the case; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in the case; and (3) whether a
`stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party.
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Apple”)
`(quotation and citation omitted); see also Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corp., No. 4:20-cv-02354-
`JSW, 2021 WL 4027370, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2021) (“Oyster Optics II”).
`Though there is no “blanket rule,” courts in this District and across the country routinely
`grant motions to stay after IPR petitions are filed but before IPR has been instituted where, as here,
`the circumstances favor a stay. Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 22-cv-01852-TLT, Dkt. 74 at
`4:16-8:17 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2023) (granting motion to stay pending IPR prior to institution); Largan
`Precision Co. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 21-cv-09138-JSW, 2022 WL 2954935, at *2-4 (N.D.
`
`
`4.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 8 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`Cal. July 26, 2022) (granting motion to stay before PTAB issued institution decisions); CF Traverse
`LLC v. Amprius, Inc., No. 20-cv-00484-RS, 2020 WL 6820942, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020)
`(granting motion to stay two months after IPR petitions on some but not all (75 of 85) asserted
`claims had been filed); Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., No. C 19-02269 JSW, 2019 WL
`9100404, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019) (granting motion to stay two months after IPR petitions
`were filed); Anza Tech., Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Components Inc., No. 17-CV-07289-LHK, 2018
`WL 4859167, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) (granting motion to stay two weeks after IPR
`petitions had been filed); Sec. People, Inc. v. Ojmar US, LLC, No. 14-cv-04968-HSG, 2015 WL
`3453780, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2015) (granting motion to stay one month after IPR petitions
`filed); Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 14-cv-00876-RS, 2015 WL 13727876,
`at *2-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015) (granting motion to stay one month after IPR petitions filed).
`Stays are routinely granted before IPR institution because, “[w]hile it is difficult to predict
`the PTAB’s behavior in any given case, the available statistical evidence showing a substantial
`likelihood that some claims will be invalidated militates in favor of a stay.” Barbaro Techs., LLC
`v. Niantic, Inc., No. 18-cv-02955-RS, 2019 WL 13232979, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019);
`Netskope, No. 22-cv-01852-TLT, Dkt. 74 at 6:15-20 (“The Court also takes into account the high
`institution rate for petitions concerning computer patents and the low ‘reasonable likelihood’
`standard for institution.”); Brixham Sols. Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 13-cv-00616-JCS,
`2014 WL 1677991, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (“[I]t is likely that a stay will simplify the issues
`in this case because the majority of requests for inter partes review are accepted and in virtually all
`of the cases in which final written decisions have been issued, the PTO has cancelled some or all
`of the challenged claims.”).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`All three stay factors—stage of the case, simplification of issues, and potential for undue
`prejudice—strongly favor staying these actions.
`A.
`The Stage of the Case Favors a Stay.
`The extremely early stages of these actions heavily favor a stay. See, e.g., Elekta, 2019 WL
`9100404, at *2-3; Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Yelp Inc., No. C 13-03587-DMR, 2013 WL
`
`
`5.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 9 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`6672451, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) (in granting stay, noting, “[t]his case is in its infancy:
`only limited discovery has occurred . . .; no trial date or discovery deadline has been set and only
`limited pretrial dates have been set; . . . [and] the court has not substantially intervened in the action
`such as by conducting a Markman hearing or issuing a claim construction order.”).
`The post-transfer Case Management Conference concluded only last week. Plaintiff has
`not yet served its infringement contentions under the Patent Local Rules, which is the key starting
`point of patent cases in this District. No claim construction hearing date has been set, no merits
`discovery has been completed, and no trial date has been set. This case is essentially at the pleading
`stage. See Netskope, No. 22-cv-01852-TLT, Dkt. 74 at 4:24-5:1 (“When Netskope filed the instant
`motion, pleadings have not yet settled and discovery has not yet begun, with invalidity and
`infringement contentions not yet served. Even as of the date of this order, initial disclosures were
`recently exchanged and written discovery has just begun.”); Largan, 2022 WL 2954935, at *4 (“No
`depositions have been noticed. Claim construction briefing has not begun, and the claim
`construction hearing is two months away.”). “When, as here, there has been no material progress
`in the litigation, courts in this district strongly favor granting stays” pending Patent Office invalidity
`review. Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-CV-02168-EJD, 2011 WL 4802958, at *3
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011). The litigation has not “progressed significantly enough for a stay to be
`disfavored.” Apple, 69 F. Supp. 3d at 1025.
`Indeed, courts in this District have stayed cases prior to IPR institution that were
`significantly further progressed than the present cases. See Finjan, 139 F. Supp. 3d at 1038 (staying
`case where claim construction briefing had been completed and claim construction hearing had
`taken place); CF Traverse, 2020 WL 6820942, at *1-2 (staying case after infringement contentions
`and discovery had been served); Oyster Optics I, 2018 WL 6972999, at *2 (staying case after
`discovery had been served and infringement and invalidity contentions had been exchanged);
`Oyster Optics II, 2021 WL 4027370, at *2 (staying case after parties had conducted fact discovery
`and drafted claim construction briefs).
`All of the costliest and most resource-intensive phases of the present litigation lie ahead.
`Plaintiff has not yet served its infringement contentions and associated disclosures that comply with
`
`
`6.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 10 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2, to be followed by Defendants’ updated invalidity contentions and
`associated document productions and disclosures under Patent Local Rules 3-3 and 3-4, completion
`of document productions, depositions, expert discovery, dispositive motions, pretrial proceedings,
`and trial. The parties and the Court would be best served by conserving their resources while the
`PTAB conducts its review.
`Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of a stay. See Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. LG
`Elecs., Inc., No. 13-cv-04034-SBA, 2014 WL 5477796, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014) (finding
`stage of litigation factor favored a stay where claim construction briefing was complete but “[t]here
`[had] been no dispositive motion practice, the claims [had] not been construed, and no deadlines
`for completing discovery, motion practice, or trial [had] been set.”).
`B.
`IPRs Will Simplify the Issues for Trial.
`The IPRs will simplify the issues in these actions and possibly dispose of them entirely. See
`Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“the outcome of the
`reexamination would be likely to assist the court in determining patent validity and, if the claims
`were canceled in the reexamination, would eliminate the need to try infringement issues”). Every
`claim asserted by Plaintiff is challenged in Defendants’ pending IPRs. If those IPRs succeed, every
`asserted claim will be held invalid, and these cases will be moot. In addition, the PTAB has already
`instituted Unified Patents’ IPR on the ʼ942 patent, which also covers all asserted claims of that
`patent. Statistically, it is highly likely that many, and possibly all, of the claims asserted in these
`actions will be held invalid in the IPRs. See, e.g., USPTO statistics through year-end 2022,
`available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab__aia_fy2022_roundup.pdf;
`Barbaro Techs., 2019 WL 13232979, at *2; Netskope, No. 22-cv-01852-TLT, Dkt. 74 at 6:15-20;
`Brixham Sols., 2014 WL 1677991, at *1. “At a minimum, instituting a brief, limited stay of
`approximately five months to see whether and how the PTAB will act on Defendant’s IPR petitions
`will conserve judicial resources and avoid inconsistent results.” Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No.
`13-cv-04613-BLF, 2014 WL 6068407, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014). “[S]hould the PTO deny
`these petitions, the delay endured by the parties will have been relatively short.” Facebook, 2014
`WL 116340, at *4.
`
`
`7.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 11 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`Further, even if the PTAB does not institute all of Defendants’ IPRs or does not ultimately
`determine that all challenged claims are invalid, “its rulings would likely clarify claim construction
`positions for the parties, raise estoppel issues, and encourage settlement.” Elekta, 2019 WL
`9100404, at *2. The Court and the parties will benefit substantially from the PTAB record and
`PTAB decisions on all the patents. Oyster Optics I, 2018 WL 6972999, at *2. For example,
`arguments that Plaintiff raises at any point during the IPRs in an effort to distinguish the prior art
`will create new intrinsic record that may substantially impact claim construction in this Court. See,
`e.g., Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1360-62 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If these cases
`had already proceeded through claim construction alongside the ongoing IPRs, the Court and
`parties would then need to redo claim construction to account for the new intrinsic evidence,
`resulting in significant wasted time and resources. In addition, all six patents and all of the asserted
`claims are closely related, sharing substantially the same specification and substantially
`overlapping claimed subject matter. As such, the final PTAB hearing (in August 2023) and final
`decision (due by November 2023) in the already-instituted IPR on one of the patents may
`significantly inform claim construction and invalidity issues on all of the patents. A stay here will
`“avoid inconsistent results, obtain guidance from the PTAB, [and] avoid needless waste of judicial
`resources.” Largan, 2022 WL 2954935, at *2 (finding that “the fact that the PTAB has not yet
`instituted proceedings does not alone” nullify this factor or “warrant denying the motion to stay”).
`In addition, if the PTAB proceeds through final written decisions on Defendants’ IPRs that
`do not eliminate every asserted claim, Defendants will be estopped from pursuing any invalidity
`grounds that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPRs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`315(e)(2), thus substantially streamlining any remaining litigation that might proceed after the
`IPRs. Elekta, 2019 WL 9100404, at *2.
`On balance, the potential simplification of issues strongly weighs in favor of a stay and
`“outweighs the potential [minimal] delay that may result without simplification of the issues if none
`of [Defendants’] IPRs are instituted.” Netskope, No. 22-cv-01852-TLT, Dkt. 74 at 6:22-25.
`C.
`A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Plaintiff.
`Finally, a stay will not cause any undue prejudice to Plaintiff. There is no undue prejudice
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`NOS. 3-23-CV-00062-JSC & -00063-JSC
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Topia Exhibit 2009
`Page 12 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00063-JSC Document 113 Filed 03/23/23 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`CHICAGO
`
`
`
`unless the patentee makes a specific showing of material prejudice beyond the delay necessarily
`inherent in any stay. Facebook, 2014 WL 116340, at *5 (citing Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc.,
`450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006)). The mere delay inherent in a stay “does not
`constitute, by itself, undue prejudice.” Apple, 69 F. Supp. 3d at 1029.
`Plaintiff is unable to make a specific showing of undue prejudice for numerous reasons.
`First, Plaintiff is not a competitor of either Defendant. Because “the parties here are not
`competitors,” Plaintiff’s “potential [f]or prejudice if a stay is granted” is lessened. Oyster Optics
`II, 2021 WL 4027370, at *3. In fact, Plaintiff does not appear to offer any commercial product that
`currently practices the asserted patents, let alone any such product that competes with Defendants’
`accused products.
`Second, Plaintiff waited for years before filing suit against Defendants, so it cannot now
`complain that a stay pre-institution would cause it any undue prejudice. Plaintiff’s asserted patents
`starte