`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ORCKIT CORPORATION,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00276-JRG-RSP
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
`
`Review Proceedings on All Four Asserted Patents. Dkt. No. 55. On January 22, 2022 Orckit
`
`filed this suit alleging that Cisco infringes U.S. Patents Nos. 6,680,904 (“the ’904 Patent”),
`
`7,545,740 (“the ’740 Patent”), 8,830,821 (“the ’821 Patent”), and 10,652,111 (“the ’111 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On January 9, 2023, Cisco filed Inter
`
`Partes review (IPR) petitions as to the ’740 Patent and the ’821 Patent. Dkt. No. 55 at 8. On
`
`February 21, 2023, Cisco filed an IPR as to the ’111 Patent. Id. On March 14, 2023, Cisco
`
`filed an IPR as to the remaining ’904 Patent. Id. Cisco now seeks to stay this action pending
`
`resolution of the IPRs. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
`
`“The decision of whether to extend a stay falls solely within the court’s inherent power to
`
`control its docket.” Pers. Audio LLC v. Google, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 623, 626 (E.D. Tex. 2017)
`
`(citation omitted); accord Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has
`
`broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”)
`
`(citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) ). In the context of IPR proceedings,
`
`whether a stay “will result in simplification of the issues before a court is viewed as the most
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2005
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 56 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1098
`
`important factor when evaluating a motion to stay.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 6:15-
`
`CV-1001-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 2899690, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017) ( citations omitted).
`
`“Simplification of the issues depends on whether the PTAB decides to grant the petition.” Id.
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`In its motion, Cisco notes that the claim construction hearing is just over six months away
`
`and will occur within about a week of the first two institution decisions. Id. at 12. Thus, Cisco
`
`impliedly admits that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ( PTAB) will not even issue an
`
`institution decision as to the ’111 Patent or the ’904 Patent until after the claim construction
`
`hearing. The claim construction hearing is set for September 7, 2023 and jury selection is set for
`
`March 4, 2024. Dkt. No. 46 at 1, 3. Even if the PTAB decides to institute Cisco’s IPRs, the
`
`PTAB likely would not issue any final written decisions until September 2024 at the earliest.
`
`It is far too early to determine that a stay will simplify the issues in the case. Therefore,
`
`the Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 55) is DENIED.
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2005
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 2 of 2
`
`
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
