`
`John P. Schnurer, Bar No. 185725
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`John D. Esterhay, Bar No. 282330
`JEsterhay@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130-2080
`Telephone: 858.720.5700
`Facsimile: 858.720.5799
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd.
`Alex W. Ruge, (Pro Hac Vice)
`aruge@sheridanross.com
`Robert R. Brunelli (Pro Hac Vic)
`RBrunelli@sheridanross.com
`Aaron P. Bradford (Pro Hac Vice)
`ABradforddford@sheridanross.com
`SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
`1560 Broadway, Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 863-9700
`Facsimile: (303) 863-0223
`Sean A. O’Brien, Bar No. 133154
`sao@paynefears.com
`PAYNE & FEARS LLP
`4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, California 92614
`Telephone: (949) 851-1100
`Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Pilot, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`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
`
`Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co.,
`Ltd.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`PILOT, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`RENEWED JOINT STIPULATION
`TO STAY CASE PENDING
`RESOLUTION OF INTER PARTES
`REVIEWS OF ’653 PATENT
`Judge:
`Hon. R. Gary Klausner
`Magistrate:
`Hon. Charles F. Eick
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 1 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:3031
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Pursuant to Local Rules 7-1 and 15, Plaintiff Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce
`Co., Ltd. (“Gooloo”) and Defendant Pilot, Inc. (“Pilot”) (collectively, the
`“Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as
`follows:
`The parties previously filed a joint stipulation requesting that the Court
`1.
`grant the same relief herein requested on December 28, 2022. (ECF No. 90).
`2.
`On January 3, 2023, the Court denied the requested stay as premature
`stating:
`The Court deems the stipulation premature because the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board's ("PTAB") decision on one of the IPRs, PTAB
`Case No. IPR2021-01232, is imminent. (See id. at 2.) The result of that
`ruling, along with any involved party's decision to appeal the ruling to
`the Federal Circuit, may inform the Court's decision regarding a stay.
`Accordingly, the Stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. The
`patties may file a renewed stipulation once the PT AB rnles on the
`outstanding IPR and any appeal has been filed.
`(ECF No. 93).
`3.
`The actions identified by the Court have now occurred, and the Parties
`therefore present this renewed joint stipulation.
`4.
`The Parties are currently engaged in discovery. Fact discovery is
`scheduled to close on February 10, 2023.
`5.
`Gooloo’s Complaint is focused on issues related to invalidity and
`infringement of the ‘653 Patent. In particular, Gooloo seeks a declaratory judgment
`of non-infringement claims 1-20 of the ‘653 Patent (ECF No. 30 ¶¶ 104-115);
`declaratory judgment of invalidity of claims 7-20 of the ‘653 Patent under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 (Id. ¶¶ 116-125); declaratory judgment of invalidity of claims 1 and 3-
`20 of the ‘653 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Id. ¶¶ 126-137); declaratory judgment
`of invalidity of claims 4, 10, and 13 of the ‘653 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 2 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3032
`
`lack of written description (Id. ¶¶ 138-159); and declaratory judgment of invalidity
`of claims 1-6 of the ‘653 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement
`(Id. ¶¶ 160-169).
`6.
`Nearly all of the claims at issue in these five counts have been found
`Nearly all of the claims at issue in these five counts have been found
`invalid by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal
`invalid by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board (“PTAB”). These decisions are on appeal before the United States Court of
`Board (“PTAB”).
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`7.
`On April 7, 2021, non-party The NOCO Company, Inc. (“NOCO”)
`filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,046,653 before the
`PTAB challenging nearly every claim of the’653 Patent at issue in this litigation,
`docketed as PTAB Case No. IPR2021-00777. On October 5, 2021, the PTAB
`instituted inter partes review of the challenged claims (“NOCO IPR”). On October
`3, 2022, the PTAB held in a final written decision that all but one of the challenged
`claims were unpatentable (i.e. invalid). On December 5, 2022, Pilot filed a notice
`of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That appeal
`is pending as U.S. Federal Circuit Case No. 23-1234.
`8.
`On July 16, 2021, non-party Shenzhen Chic Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`(“Shenzhen Chic”) filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`10,046,653 before the PTAB challenging all but one claim of the’653 Patent,
`docketed as PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01232. This Petition for Inter Partes Review
`encompassed additional claims not challenged in the NOCO IPR. On January 14,
`2022, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the challenged claims (“Shenzen
`Chic IPR”). On October 12, 2022, the PTAB heard oral argument. On January 9,
`2023, the PTAB again held in a final written decision that all but one of the
`challenged claims were unpatentable (i.e. invalid). On January 10, 2023, Pilot filed
`a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`That appeal is pending but has not yet been given a case number.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 3 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:3033
`
`The final written decisions in the two IPRs each hold all challenged
`9.
`claims invalid with the sole exception of Claim 3 of the ‘653 Patent. Claim 3 is
`subject to a claim construction by the PTAB that is disputed on appeal.
`10.
`The parties agree that there is good cause for a stay of this action
`pending the conclusion of the Federal Circuit appeals of NOCO’s IPR in Case No.
`23-1234 as well as of Shenzhen Chic’s IPR, Case No. IPR2021-01232. Gooloo is
`asserting claims for a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’653 patent, and
`such claims will be materially impacted—and perhaps even rendered moot—by any
`decision of the PTAB and/or Federal Circuit in the pending IPR proceedings and
`their appeals. Thus, allowing these proceedings to conclude before further litigating
`this case will both simplify this proceeding by resolving or substantially advancing
`issues in dispute, such as claim construction and invalidity of claims of the ’653
`patent, as well as create judicial efficiency by postponing further activity until after
`the Federal Circuit has ruled on these issues. A stay may also prevent potentially
`inconsistent determinations of validity on the same claims of the ’653 Patent. The
`parties expect that the stay will be in place approximately one year, as the Federal
`Circuit’s median time for appeals from the PTAB has historically been
`approximately 11 months.
`11. A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident
`to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
`For example, a district court “may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own
`docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it,
`pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v.
`Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In such
`cases, the court “need not find that two cases possess identical issues; a finding that
`the issues are substantially similar is sufficient to support a stay.” Moore v.
`Universal Prot. Serv., LP, No. EDCV 19-2124 JGB (SPx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 4 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:3034
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`88220, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
`254 (1936).
`In the context of inter partes review proceedings, courts in this district
`12.
`primarily consider three factors: “(1) whether discovery is complete and a trial date
`has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the
`case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical
`disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” See Pause Commers., Inc. v. Hulu, Inc., No.
`2:21-cv-02302-RGK-KES, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201641, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June
`24, 2021). However, the inquiry on whether to grant a stay encompasses the totality
`of the circumstances. Id.
`13. Discovery is not complete and, although a trial date has been set,
`dispositive motions have not been filed. Fact discovery does not close until
`February 10, 2023, and the trial is scheduled for May 9, 2023. (ECF No. 66.)
`Although the parties have engaged in initial discovery efforts, a significant amount
`of discovery remains—for example, no depositions have been conducted—and the
`parties have not filed motions for summary judgment. The Court has also not
`started the claim construction process. This factor favors a stay. See, e.g.,
`Fulfillium, Inc. v. ReShape Med., LLC, No. 2:17-cv-08419-RGK-PLA, 2018 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 229793, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2018) (finding this favor weighed
`slightly in favor of stay where a significant amount of discovery remained and the
`parties had not yet filed motions for summary judgment, even though the case had
`been pending for over a year and the Court had already touched on the substantive
`issues of patent invalidity); Wonderland Nurserygoods Co. v. Baby Trend, Inc., No.
`EDCV 14-01153-VAP (SPx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53053, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal.
`Apr. 20, 2015) (finding this factor weights in favor of granting a stay where fact
`discovery is not complete).
`14.
`It does not make sense for the parties or the Court to expend resources
`litigating issues that would be mooted if the Board’s ruling is affirmed on appeal.
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 5 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:3035
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Some courts find this factor to weigh in favor of a stay even before the Board
`institutes inter partes review, see, e.g., Wonderland Nurserygoods Co. v. Baby
`Trend, Inc., No. EDCV 14-01153-VAP (SPx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53053, at *7-
`8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015) (granting pre-institution stay), although there is far
`from a consensus on that, see, e.g., Pause Commers., Inc. v. Hulu, Inc., No. 2:21-
`cv-02302-RGK-KES, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201641, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 24,
`2021) (rejecting pre-institution stay). However, the IPRs have not only been
`instituted but has reached a final written decision invalidating most of the claims of
`the ’653 Patent. At this point, simplification of the issues is likely. See Cobalt
`Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., No. 2:15cv21, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225428,
`at *9 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2017) (“When a party is appealing a decision to invalidate
`claims, the Federal Circuit’s decision is likely to simplify the case because it could
`confirm the mootness of certain claims.”).
`Finally, there would be no undue prejudice to Gooloo or Pilot from
`15.
`granting the stay, as confirmed by their joint request for this relief. While the stay
`would, by its nature, delay the litigation, delay alone does not establish undue
`prejudice. Nichia, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183610, at *16.
`16.
`For the good cause as explained in the paragraphs above, the Parties
`stipulate and agree to stay this case until the Federal Circuit issues its mandate on
`the NOCO IPR and the Shenzhen Chic IPR. Following issuance of a mandate on
`both the NOCO IPR and the Shenzhen Chic IPR by the Federal Circuit (or a final
`decision on one IPR that terminates any further proceedings on the other) the stay
`shall be lifted immediately upon a motion to the Court by either party. The parties
`agree to file a joint status report updating the Court within fourteen (14) days of the
`final resolution of these actions.
`17.
`The parties agree the stay is contingent upon Pilot (or any agent,
`person, or entity acting on its behalf) in no way attempting to remove or interfere
`with Gooloo’s jump starter products by asserting any claim of the ’653 Patent,
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 6 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:3036
`
`whether on Amazon, or any other marketplace, forum, store, or related selling
`place. Should Pilot (or any agent, person, or entity acting on its behalf) attempt to
`remove or remove any Gooloo products by asserting the ’653 Patent in any forum,
`the stay shall be lifted immediately upon a motion to the Court by either party.
`18.
`The Parties further agree that the agreement to stay the case is
`contingent on Pilot’s representation to Gooloo that it will not use the stay or the
`duration of the stay as a basis to challenge or evidence in support of any challenge
`to Gooloo’s jurisdiction over its claims in federal court, including, but not limited
`to any challenge over the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
`19.
`The Parties further agree and stipulate that all current case deadlines
`shall be suspended and all activity in the case shall cease.
`20.
`The only exception to Paragraph 16 above is that the Parties agree that
`Pilot may continue efforts to serve a third-party subpoena on Shenzhen Carku
`Technology Co., Ltd. (“Carku”) through Pilot’s currently pending Unopposed
`Motion For Issuance Of Letter Of Request To Examine Persons And Inspect
`Documents Pursuant To Hague Convention (ECF No. 91), seeking service through
`the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in
`Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”). But, any efforts to
`enforce the third-party subpoena, once served, shall be stayed along with the rest of
`the case.
`21. Nothing in Paragraph 16 or anything else in this stipulation shall be
`read or construed to limit or suspend either party’s ability to seek immediate relief
`from the Court under a temporary restraining order or related procedure.
`
`Pursuant to the Local Rule 5-4.3.4, regarding signatures, I attest that
`concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other
`signatures listed below.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 7 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:3037
`
`DATED: January 11, 2023
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`By: /s/ Heath L. Hyatt
`John D. Esterhay, Bar No. 282330
`JEsterhay@perkinscoie.com
`John P. Schnurer, Bar No. 185725
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130-2080
`Telephone: (858) 720-5700
`Facsimile: (858) 720-5799
`Oliver M. Gold, Bar No. 279033
`OGold@perkinscoie.com
`1888 Century Park East
`Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 788-3291
`Facsimile: (310) 788-3399
`Heath L. Hyatt (Pro Hac Vice)
`HHyatt@perkinscoie.com
`1201 Third Avenue
`Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co.,
`Ltd.
`
`SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
`By: /s/ Alex W. Ruge
`Alex W. Ruge, (Pro Hac Vice)
`aruge@sheridanross.com
`Robert R. Brunelli (Pro Hac Vic)
`RBrunelli@sheridanross.com
`Aaron P. Bradford (Pro Hac Vice)
`ABradforddford@sheridanross.com
`SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
`1560 Broadway, Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 863-9700
`Facsimile: (303) 863-0223
`Sean A. O’Brien, Bar No. 133154
`sao@paynefears.com
`PAYNE & FEARS LLP
`
`DATED: January 11, 2023
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 8 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02219-RGK-E Document 94 Filed 01/11/23 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:3038
`
`4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, California 92614
`Telephone: (949) 851-1100
`Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Pilot, Inc.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
`CASE
`Page Page 9 of 9 (IPR2023-00758)
`159807708.1
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02219-RGK-E
`
`