Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:9337
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`Present: The
`Honorable
`
`James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge
`
`Elsa Vargas
`Deputy Clerk
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Not Present
`
`Not Present
`Court Reporter
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings:
`
`[IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Stay [87]
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to stay proceedings
`pending the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision on institution and
`subsequent inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings if instituted. (Mot., Dkt No. 87.)
`Plaintiff RJ Technology LLC (“RJ”) opposed the motion. (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 95.) Apple
`replied. (Reply, Dkt. No. 100.) The Court vacated oral argument, and neither party filed
`a request for hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
`
`For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`RJ filed this action against Apple on October 13, 2022, asserting infringement of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 (“’641 patent”). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On January 5, 2023,
`the Court set the scheduling order. (Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 35.) On July 31, 2023,
`the Court held a Markman hearing and issued its Claim Construction Order on August 2,
`2023. (Claim Construction Order, Dkt. No. 82.) The dispositive motion deadline is May
`6, 2024, fact discovery closes on December 8, 2023, expert discovery closes on March 8,
`2024, and trial is scheduled to begin on June 25, 2024. (Scheduling Order at 1.)
`
`On August 23, 2023, Apple filed an IPR petition before the PTAB challenging
`every claim of the ’641 patent. (Mot. at 1.) The PTAB’s institution of the IPR is
`expected on February 28, 2024. (Id. at 3; Opp’n at 1.)
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`APPLE 1026
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:9338
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`“The 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); see also
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In deciding whether to
`stay an action pending IPR, a court’s discretion is typically guided by three factors: (1)
`whether discovery is complete and whether 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.
`Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1030–31
`(C.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Aten Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Emine Tech. Co., Ltd., No. SACV
`09–0843, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46226, at *20–21 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2010)). The
`inquiry, however, is not limited to these factors and “the totality of the circumstances
`governs.” Allergan Inc. v. Cayman Chemical Co., No. SACV 07–01316, 2009 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 131889, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2009) (citation omitted). In addition, “[t]here is
`a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the outcome of
`re-examination, especially in cases that are still in the initial stages of litigation and where
`there has been little or no discovery.” Limestone v. Micron Tech., No. SACV 15–00278,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90742, at *8–9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Stage of the Proceedings
`
`The Court first considers “the stage of proceedings,” including the progress of
`discovery, the status of claim construction, and whether a trial date has been set. See
`Universal Elecs., 943 F. Supp. 2d at 1031. Essentially, where “there is more work ahead
`of the parties and the Court than behind,” this factors weighs in favor of granting a stay.
`See Tierravision, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 11-CV-2170, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21463, at
`*6 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012).
`
`Apple argues that “substantial fact discovery remains” and “expert discovery has
`yet to begin.” (Mot. at 5.) RJ has “only produced 149 publicly available documents in
`connection with its infringement and claim construction positions.” (Id.) Apple points
`out that RJ has also not produced “documents regarding the testing and experiments
`(including what parameters were used) referenced in the specification of the ’641 Patent,
`licensing of the ’641 Patent, or [RJ’s] corporate structure.” (Id.) Importantly, neither
`party has scheduled nor taken any depositions. (Id. at 6.) RJ only identified two
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:9339
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`individuals with discoverable information, but both of them reside in China. (Id.) While
`RJ agreed to allow Apple to depose the two individuals in the United States, RJ must first
`obtain visas for them. (Id.; Opp’n at 10.) RJ has admitted that this “process involv[es]
`significant efforts.” (Opp’n at 10.) Besides Apple’s motion to dismiss, no other
`dispositive motions have been submitted to the Court. (Mot. at 7.) The deadline for
`dispositive motions is May 6, 2024, which is more than seven months away. (Scheduling
`Order at 1.) However, RJ claims that the status of the litigation weighs against a stay
`because the Court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss, issued a Scheduling Order,
`reviewed RJ’s and Apple’s claim construction briefs, held a Markman hearing, and issued
`a Claim Construction Order. (Opp’n at 6–7.)
`
`Even though a trial date has been set and this Court issued its Claim Construction
`Order, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of a stay. Fact discovery closes on
`December 8, 2023 and expert discovery does not close until March 8, 2024 with trial
`starting on June 25, 2024. (Scheduling Order at 1.) Moreover, as indicated by both
`parties, fact discovery is not yet complete and expert discovery has not yet begun. (Mot.
`at 5–6; Opp’n at 9–10.) Thus, although the Markman hearing has taken place and this
`Court issued its Claim Construction Order, there is still much more work ahead. See
`Purecircle U.S. Inc. v. SweeGen, Inc., No. SACV 18-1679, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`124444, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2019) (finding that “where there is more work ahead of
`the parties and the Court than behind, this factor weighs in favor of granting a stay”)
`(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Universal Elecs. Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No.
`SACV 18-1580, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220758, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) (granting
`a stay with “claim construction completed, discovery about to close, and trial set for 7 1/2
`months after the hearing” on the motion to stay); PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Facebook,
`Inc., No. 5:13-CV-01356, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4095, at *13–14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13,
`2014) (granting a stay even though “a claim construction order has been issued and the
`close of fact discovery is fast approaching” because “a substantial portion of the
`work–expert discovery, summary judgment, pre-trial preparation, and trial itself–lies
`ahead”); Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. SACV 19-1072,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45005, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2021) (“[A]lthough the Court
`had already issued its Claim Construction Order, the case was in its early stages because
`the parties still needed to (1) finish document production, (2) conduct depositions, (3)
`complete and exchange expert reports, (4) file any dispositive motions, and (5)
`potentially proceed through a trial.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); UPA NA, Inc. v.
`Tide Int’l (USA), Inc., No. CV 19-1201, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31467, at *6 (C.D. Cal.
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 3 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:9340
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`Feb. 19, 2021) (staying the case after the court issued a claim construction order because
`“there remains significant work ahead of the parties in this litigation, including party
`depositions, expert discovery, summary judgment, pretrial preparation, and trial”).
`
`The cases that RJ relies on to support its claims are inapposite. In Ravgen, Inc. v.
`Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-09011, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19271, at *10 (C.D.
`Cal. Feb. 2, 2022), the patents-in-suit were set to expire just five months after the PTAB’s
`ruling on the IPR proceedings was due. Here, the remaining life of RJ’s patent is through
`2027. (Reply at 14.) Additionally, in Ravgen, the claim construction order was issued
`four months before defendant’s filed a motion to stay. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19271, at
`*6. Meanwhile, Apple moved to stay this case the same month this Court issued its
`Claim Construction Order. RJ also relied on Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Sys.,
`Inc., No. C 10-04645, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30946 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012) to support
`its position that the stage of litigation weighs against a stay. But in Interwoven, the court
`declined to stay the case where the statistics for ex parte reexamination, not IPR, reflected
`only a 12% chance of cancellation of the claims in their entirety. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`30946, at *10–11. Lastly, RJ relies on Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology
`Co., Inc., No. SACV 16-00300, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186795 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17,
`2016). In Polaris Innovations Ltd., the court declined to stay the case pending a petition
`for IPR because although defendant moved for review and cancellation of all six patents
`at issue, “the PTAB may decide to proceed on only some of the challenged claims, if it
`decides to proceed at all.” 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186795, at *5. But the PTAB can no
`longer decide to proceed on only some challenged claims, “the Board must address every
`claim the petitioner has challenged” if an IPR is instituted. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138
`S. Ct. 1348 (2018) (emphasis in original).
`
`RJ also argues that a stay in this case will affect its litigation with Samsung in the
`Eastern District of Texas, which alleges infringement of the same ’641 patent. (Opp’n at
`4–5.) RJ contends that Apple could have joined Samsung’s petition for IPR on July 21,
`2023, but it did not. (Id. at 8.) Although Samsung has also moved to stay, RJ claims that
`the Eastern District of Texas is unlikely to grant the stay given its “universal” approach
`of denying stays until the PTAB issues an institution decision, which will be at the end of
`January 2024. (Id. at 5, 8.) According to RJ, “[g]ranting a stay here would mean that one
`federal court will maintain the parallel litigation, while relieving the more dilatory party
`from its discovery obligations even before an institution decision is reached.” (Id. at 9.)
`But “the situation is of [RJ’s] own choosing.” PersonalWeb Techs., 2014 U.S. Dist.
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 4 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:9341
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`LEXIS 4095, at *21. “In revising [35 U.S.C. §] 299 to restrict joinder of defendants to
`those whose cases actually arise out of the same facts or transaction, Congress explicitly
`expressed its intent that ‘parties who make completely different products and have no
`relation to each other’ should not be treated as co-defendants.’” Id. (quoting 157 Cong.
`Rec. H4420–06 at H4426 (daily ed. June 22, 2011) (statement of Rep. Goodlatte)). Thus,
`“when choosing to file multiple cases against numerous defendants, Plaintiffs simply
`cannot expect to proceed along the circuitous path of litigation as if they had only filed
`one.” Id. Moreover, if an IPR is instituted, the PTAB’s decision regarding the ’641
`patent will likely narrow the issues in dispute with Samsung and avoid duplicative
`proceedings.
`
`The Court therefore finds that this factor weighs in favor of a stay.1
`
`B.
`
`Simplification of Issues in Question
`
`The Court next considers “whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and
`the trial of the case.” Universal Elecs., 943 F. Supp. 2d at 1032. If an IPR is instituted
`and the PTAB issues a final written decision, Apple will be estopped from asserting
`invalidity based on any ground it “raised or reasonably could have raised” during the
`IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2); see also (Mot. at 10.). Apple has also “stipulate[d] not to
`seek resolution in the district court of any ground of invalidity that utilizes the primary
`references asserted in [its] Petition” for IPR. (Declaration of Yungmoon Chang (“Chang
`Decl.”), Dkt. No. 87–2 ¶ 3.) The deadline for PTAB to issue an institution decision is
`February 28, 2024, which is four months before trial is set to start. (Mot. at 3.)
`
`However, RJ argues that a “stay prior to an institution decision would be
`premature.” (Opp’n at 10.) RJ cites decisions in this District that have denied stays
`where an IPR petition has not yet been instituted by the PTAB. (Opp’n at 10–11.)
`However, “courts in this District have adopted the majority position that even if IPR has
`
`1 The Court finds that RJ’s arguments related to the filing of its motion to compel are irrelevant
`because that motion was filed nine days after Apple’s motion to stay. (See generally Opp’n.)
`“‘[D]istrict courts have adopted the date of the filing of the motion to stay’ as the ‘proper time to
`measure the stage of litigation.’” Olati LLC v. Haas Automation, Inc., No. CV 20-1650, 2020 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 249987, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2020) (quoting VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759
`F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:9342
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`not yet been instituted, the simplification factor may still weigh in favor of a stay.”
`Purecircle USA Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124444, at *6. See, e.g., Masimo Corp. v.
`Apple Inc., No. SACV 20-48, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217483, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13,
`2020); Document Sec. Sys. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., No. SACV 17-00981, 2018 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 236150, at *7–8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018); Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC
`v. Hisense Elecs. Mfg. Co. of Am. Corp., No. SACV 20-00123, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`194389, at *6–7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2020); Universal Elecs., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`220758, at *5–6; Caravan Canopy Int’l v. Home Depot U.S.A., No. SACV 19-1072,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187782, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020); Core Optical Techs.,
`LLC v. Fujitsu Network Commc’ns, Inc., No. SACV 16-00437, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`195061, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016); Limestone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90742, at
`*14–15; Polymer Tech. Sys., Inc. v. Jant Pharmacal Corp., No. LACV 15-02585, 2015
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179423, at *11–14 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015); but see Polaris
`Innovations Ltd., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186795, at *4–6; Hologram USA, Inc v.
`Vntana, 3D, LLC, No. CV 14-09489, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184440, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
`Dec. 7, 2015).
`
`Apple contends that its petition simplifies the issues in question because it
`challenges all remaining asserted claims of the ’641 patent, which could dispose of the
`entire litigation if successful. (Mot. at 3, 8.) “Where a defendant is actively involved in
`the IPR process with respect to all of the asserted claims, simplification is likely.”
`Masimo Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217483, at *7; see also Limestone, 2016 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 90742, at *15 (“Because Defendants have petitioned for review of nearly all
`claims asserted in this action, the outcome of the IPR has the potential to significantly
`narrow the scope and complexity of the litigation.”) Thus, if the PTAB cancels all of the
`asserted claims, the patent claims in this action will be rendered moot. Moreover, “if
`institution is denied, a stay will be relatively short.” Purecircle USA Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 124444, at *5. See, e.g., Game & Tech. Co. v. Riot Games, Inc., No. CV
`16-06486, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187911, at *6–7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (“The
`undecided status of the petition clouds the simplification inquiry and makes
`simplification more speculative. ‘However, if an IPR is not instituted, the stay will be
`relatively short and the action can continue with minimal delay.’”) (quoting Wonderland
`Nurserygoods Co. v. Baby Trend, Inc., No. EDCV 14-01153, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`53053, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015)); see also Universal Elecs., 943 F. Supp. 2d at
`1033 (noting that “[t]he undecided status of the petitions clouds the simplification
`inquiry” but finding the simplification factor still weighed in favor of a stay).
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:9343
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor also weighs in favor of a stay. The
`outcome of the IPR may significantly narrow the scope and complexity of the litigation
`and the parties’ and Court’s resources are likely to be conserved.
`
`C.
`
`Undue Prejudice or Tactical Advantage
`
`Finally, the Court considers “whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a
`clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Universal Elecs., 943 F. Supp. 2d at
`1032. The mere possibility of delay, inherent in all proceedings, is insufficient to
`constitute undue prejudice. See PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d
`1022, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Courts have repeatedly found no undue prejudice unless
`the patentee makes a specific showing of prejudice beyond the delay necessarily inherent
`in any stay.”).
`
`“[A] primary issue in an undue prejudice analysis is whether the parties are
`competitors such that a stay would cause irreparable harm to the patentee in the market.”
`Core Optical Techs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195061, at *5. Here, RJ admits that it does
`not compete with Apple because it “is a non-practicing entity.” (Opp’n at 12.) Rather,
`RJ is a “newly created company focused on licensing intellectual property.” (Mot. at 11;
`Chang Decl. ¶ 6.) Because RJ and Apple do not compete in the lithium-ion battery
`market, RJ does not risk losing any additional sales if a stay is granted. This is especially
`true given that RJ only seeks monetary damages and not injunctive relief. (See Second
`Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Dkt. No. 51.) See, e.g., Document Sec. Sys., 2018 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 236150, at *5–6 (“[Because Plaintiff] is a non-practicing entity and thus is
`not directly competing against Defendants in the marketplace[, Plaintiff] therefore does
`not risk losing additional sales to allegedly infringing competitors while the case is
`stayed.”) (internal citations omitted); PersonalWeb Techs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4095,
`at *20 (“[C]onsidering the parties are not competitors, any harm from the temporary halt
`in enforcing Plaintiffs’ rights in the asserted patents can be addressed through a final
`damages award.”) RJ argues that although it is a non-practicing entity, that does not
`shield it from the inherent prejudice caused by a stay. (Opp’n at 12.) RJ relies on
`Reversible Connections LLC v. GBT Inc., No. CV 17-05382, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`238417 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) to support its position. However, in Reversible
`Connections LLC, the Court similarly found that plaintiff’s status as a non-practicing
`entity meant it did not risk losing additional sales if a stay was granted, and plaintiff did
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:9344
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`not contend that monetary damages would be inadequate. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`238417, at *5. Instead, the Court found that the undue prejudice factor weighed slightly
`against a stay because the non-filing defendants did “not agree[] to be bound by the IPR
`statutory estoppel provisions to the same extent as [the filing defendant].” Id. That is not
`an issue in this case. Apple is the only defendant in this action, will be bound by the
`application of IPR estoppel, and agreed not to utilize the primary art references that it
`asserted in its IPR petition.2 (Mot. at 10; Chang Decl. ¶ 3; Reply at 12.)
`
`Additionally, RJ argues that some prejudice exists due to the timing of Apple’s IPR
`filing. (Opp’n at 12.) But RJ brought this patent infringement claim on October 13,
`2022, (see Compl.), and Apple filed its IPR petition on August 23, 2022, (Mot., Ex. A).
`Thus, Apple filed its IPR petition within the one-year statutory period set out for IPR
`petitions. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); see also Weserve Drone, LLC v. Sz Dji Tech. Co., No.
`CV 19-04382, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138497, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020) (“While
`this petition was not swiftly filed, the Court notes that Congress allows a 12-month
`window for a Defendant to submit an IPR Petition after Defendant has been served with
`the Complaint.”).
`
`Thus, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`D.
`
`Totality of the Circumstances
`
`In sum, all three factors weigh in favor of granting a stay. Having considered the
`totality of the circumstances, the Court GRANTS Apple’s motion to stay pending
`institution of inter partes review and subsequent proceedings if instituted.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay.
`
`2 Moreover, Samsung, a non-party defendant, did agree to be bound by the IPR statutory
`estoppel provisions in its separate IPR petition. Samsung “stipulate[d] that it will not pursue any
`grounds that have been raised, or which reasonably could have been raised, in this [IPR] proceeding in
`connection with a challenge to the validity of the ’641 patent in the co-pending district court litigation.”
`(Declaration of Zach Ruby, Dkt. No. 95–1, Ex. 1, at 61.)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 106 Filed 10/04/23 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:9345
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8:22-cv-01874-JVS (JDEx)
`RJ Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`Date October 4, 2023
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`