Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 219 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 17242
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00359-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00362-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`WAZE MOBILE LIMITED
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination (the
`
`“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 202). Having considered the Motion and the related briefing, the Court finds
`
`that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) alleges Defendants Google LLC
`
`(“Google”), Waze Mobile Limited (“Waze”), and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) (altogether, collectively, “Defendants”)
`
`infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,749,829 (“the ’829 Patent”); 9,820,123 (“the ’123 Patent”); 9,408,055
`
`(“the ’055 Patent”); 9,445,251 (“the ’251 Patent”); 9,467,838 (“the ’838 Patent”); and 8,213,970
`
`(“the ’970 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1).
`
`The Defendants previously filed an Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`of the ’829 Patent and the ’123 Patent and Ex Parte Reexamination of the remainder of the
`
`GOOG-1050 / PGR2021-00029
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 1 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 219 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 17243
`
`Asserted Patents. (Dkt. No. 97). The Court denied the Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`and Ex Parte Reexamination without prejudice, as premature, noting that institution decisions as
`
`to the pending Inter Partes reviews (“IPRs”) and Ex Parte Reexaminations (“EPRs”) had not then
`
`been made. (Dkt. No. 114). The Court, in its denial Order, advised the Defendants that they could
`
`subsequently seek a stay “following the PTAB’s institution decision regarding the last of the
`
`patents-in-suit to be acted upon by the PTAB.” (Id.). This is consistent with this Court’s well-
`
`established practice where institution decisions remain pending.
`
`The Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) subsequently denied institution of the IPRs
`
`as to the ’829 Patent and the ’123 Patent, and Google and Samsung filed Requests for Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on those patents in
`
`addition to the remainder of the Asserted Patents. (Dkt. No. 202).
`
`In response to the Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination, the PTO found substantial new
`
`questions of patentability as to each of the asserted claims in the patents-in-suit and granted
`
`all Requests for Reexamination. (Id(cid:17))(cid:17) The Defendants have now renewed their request for a
`
`stay pending the resolution of the EPRs.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“The district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power
`
`to stay proceedings.” Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see also Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`
`849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets
`
`and stay proceedings, including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO
`
`reexamination.” (internal citation omitted)). How to best manage the Court’s docket “calls for the
`
`2
`
`GOOG-1050 / PGR2021-00029
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 2 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 219 Filed 02/09/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 17244
`
`exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”
`
`Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55.
`
`In deciding whether to stay litigation pending reexamination, courts typically consider:
`
`(1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving
`
`party, (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case, and (3) whether
`
`discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set. Soverain, 356 F. Supp. 2d at 662.
`
`III.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The Defendants argue that this case should be stayed in light of the ERPs because (1) all
`
`asserted claims of all Asserted Patents now stand subject to granted ERPs; (2) all of the PTO’s
`
`EPR grant orders and all three Office Actions issued to date for the Asserted Patents have stated
`
`that the priority date for those patents is likely much earlier—October 31, 2014—and that the
`
`parent patent to the Asserted Patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 Patent”) anticipates
`
`and renders obvious all challenged claims; and (3) it would not be expeditious to proceed to trial
`
`on the current claims. (Dkt. No. 202). AGIS asserts that the case need not be stayed because (1) any
`
`rejections remain speculative, just as they did when the Court denied the Defendants’ previous
`
`request for a stay; and (2) AGIS will suffer undue prejudice if the case is stayed. (Dkt. No. 210.)
`
` “A stay is particularly justified when ‘the outcome of a PTO proceeding is likely to assist
`
`the court in determining patent validity or eliminate the need to try infringement issues.’” Ericsson
`
`Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:15-cv-00011, 2016 WL 1162162, at *1 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 23, 2016) (quoting NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., No. 2:13-CV-1058, 2015 WL 1069111,
`
`at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015). In the context of EPRs, a stay is appropriate when there is a
`
`“significant likelihood that the outcome of the reexamination proceeding will streamline the scope
`
`3
`
`GOOG-1050 / PGR2021-00029
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 3 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 219 Filed 02/09/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 17245
`
`of this case to an appreciable extent if not dispose of it entirely.” Veraseal LLC v. Wal-Mart Sores,
`
`Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00527 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2018).
`
`It has been this Court’s consistent and long established practice to deny motions to stay
`
`pending IPR and ERP when the PTAB or PTO have instituted review on less than all asserted
`
`claims of all asserted patents1 because (cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:3) (cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:3) (cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:3) (cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3) (cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3) originally asserted claims will be
`
`unaffected by the outcome of those parallel proceedings and left intact (cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:3) to be
`
`tried. See, e.g., Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2:19-cv-00125-JRG, Dkt. No. 34
`
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2020); Greenthread LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2:19-cv-00147-JRG,
`
`Dkt. No. 43 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2020); Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., 2:19-
`
`cv-00152-JRG, Dkt. No. 69 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2020); Oyster Optics, LLC v. Infinera Corp.,
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00257-JRG, Dkt. No. 62 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2020). However, where the PTAB has
`
`instituted IPR proceedings or the PTO has granted EPR’s as to (cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86),
`
`this Court has likewise routinely stayed cases because the Court (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)does not retain before it
`
`(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:92)(cid:3) intact (cid:11)a(cid:86) originally asserted(cid:12) claims that are (cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:92) to move forward to(cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71) trial. In th(cid:72)
`
`context(cid:3) (cid:90)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3) (cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3) (cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3) (cid:75)(cid:68)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:3) (cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3) (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3) (cid:88)(cid:83)(cid:82)(cid:81), the Court understands that all (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3) claims
`
`may (cid:83)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3)be modified, dropped, or (cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:71) in light of (cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:70)(cid:75) parallel proceedings. Image
`
`Processing Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:16-cv-505-JRG, 2017 WL 7051628, *1–
`
`2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2017); Arbor Global Strategies LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-
`
`cv-333-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 66531 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2021).
`
`Having considered the factors outlined above and the specific facts and circumstances of
`
`this case, the Court is persuaded that the benefits of a stay outweigh the costs of
`
`postponing resolution of the litigation in this particular case. Since all the asserted claims of
`
`1 Or in a pre-SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu world, where the PTAB instituted IPRs on some but not all challenged claims.
`See SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).
`
`4
`
`GOOG-1050 / PGR2021-00029
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 219 Filed 02/09/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 17246
`
`(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)Patents, pending before this Court, are now subject to granted EPRs the prejudice
`
`to AGIS is outweighed by the benefit of such parallel review. When claims are rejected in
`
`an ex parte reexamination proceeding, the patent owner can narrow, cancel, or submit new
`
`claims. See M.P.E.P. § 2258. The asserted claims which have been rejected in the reexamination
`
`proceedings(cid:3) have a high likelihood of being modified in some material way in response to their
`
`rejection. They may also be dropped or canceled completely. It is unlikely that they will stay as
`
`they were when suit was (cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3) filed, and if—in this specific situation—the case were to
`
`proceed to trial on the current claims, as is, there is a serious risk of wasted resources as between
`
`(cid:69)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:3)the parties and the Court.
`
`Although this (cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:3) stay comes late in the progression of this case—with discovery
`
`complete, pretrial briefing submitted, and jury selection pending—there remain significant
`
`resources yet to be expended by the parties, including at the pretrial conference and preparations
`
`leading up to an actual trial of this case. In light of the increased probability that the asserted
`
`claims will change in scope, or be dropped or canceled altogether, the Court finds that upon
`
`considering the totality of the circumstances in this case at this time, a stay is warranted.
`
`Accordingly, having considered prejudice to AGIS, simplification of the issues to be tried,
`
`and the stage of the case, the Court finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting a stay
`
`of this case pending resolution of the ex parte reexaminations.
`
`IV.(cid:3) CONCLUSION
`
`In light of the foregoing, the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination (Dkt.
`
`No. 202) should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, the above-captioned cases are
`
`hereby STAYED until the ultimate resolution in each of the ex parte reexaminations instituted as
`
`to all the Asserted Patents.
`
`5
`
`GOOG-1050 / PGR2021-00029
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 5 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 219 Filed 02/09/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 17247
`
`.
`
`The parties are ORDERED to file a joint notice updating the Court as to the status of the
`
`(cid:36)sserted (cid:38)laims and the ex parte reexaminations within thirty (30) days of (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) ultimate
`
`(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:83)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81) in the (cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:3) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3) final ex parte reexaminatio(cid:81). The parties are additionally
`
`ORDERED to file periodic joint notices with the Court to report on the current status of
`
`the(cid:86)(cid:72) reexamination proceedings every 120 days until this case is either unstayed or terminated.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of February, 2021.
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________
`____________________________________
`DNEY GILSSSSTTTTRAP
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`
`ITED STATEEEEESSSS DISTRICT JUD
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`6
`
`GOOG-1050 / PGR2021-00029
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 6 of 6
`
`