Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 40-5 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1203
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 40-5 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1204
`Case 6:14-cv-00553-MHS Document 56 Filed 11/04/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 638
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`Enterprise Systems Technologies S.a.r.l.
`
`v.
`
`Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.,
`Motorola Mobility LLC,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
`HTC Corporation,
`HTC America, Inc.,
`LG Electronics, Inc.
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and
`LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:14-cv-553-MHS
`Consolidated Lead Case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR STAY PENDING
`FINAL DISPOSITION OF RELATED PROCEEDING BEFORE THE
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`
`
`Before the Court is a Motion by Samsung, HTC, and LG to Stay All Claims Against
`
`Them Pending Final Disposition of Related Proceeding Before the United States International
`
`Trade Commission (ITC) relating to three of the four patents at issue in this case (Doc. No. 38).
`
`Motorola—not a respondent in the ITC proceedings—also filed a Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 39).
`
`Having considered the parties’ arguments and applicable law, the Court finds that both motions
`
`should be GRANTED.
`
`Plaintiff Enterprise Systems Technologies S.a.r.l. (EST) alleges that Defendants have
`
`infringed four EST patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,870,610 (the ’610 Patent), 5,995,594 (the ’594
`
`Patent), 6,691,302 (the ’302 Patent), and 7,454,201 (the ’201 Patent). Of those four patents, EST
`
`has asserted the ’610, ’302, and ’201 Patents (the ITC patents) against Samsung, HTC, and LG
`
`(collectively, ITC Defendants) in ITC Investigation Number 337-TA-925. The ITC instituted its
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 40-5 Filed 12/27/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1205
`Case 6:14-cv-00553-MHS Document 56 Filed 11/04/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 639
`
`investigation on August 15, 2014, and the ITC Defendants’ motion to stay was filed September
`
`12, 2014, within the 30-day allotted time for request for a mandatory stay.
`
`With respect to the ITC Patents, this Court must stay proceedings as to ITC Defendants.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659 (a). Whether to stay the remainder of the case, however, is a matter within the
`
`Court’s discretion. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 249–58 (1936). In considering
`
`whether to stay the remainder of the case, the Court considers (1) whether a stay would 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. Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Palm, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-272, 2009
`
`WL 3755041, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2009) (applying factors for discretionary stay); Black
`
`Hills Media, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 2:13-cv-379 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 17,
`
`2014), Doc. No. 63 at 2 (same). “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its
`
`need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
`
`Though the ’594 Patent and Motorola are not part of the ITC proceedings, judicial
`
`efficiency favors a stay.
`
`First, there is no significant prejudice visited upon Plaintiff by staying the entire case.
`
`EST does not compete with Defendants in the consumer electronics field. Plaintiff brought these
`
`circumstances on itself by filing its ITC complaint on the same day it sued HTC and LG (July
`
`16, 2014) and filing amended complaints against Samsung and Motorola within the same week.
`
`Further, Plaintiff should have anticipated the possibility (if not the probability) of Defendants’
`
`seeking to stay the non-ITC portion of this case. See Black Hills Media, Case No. 2:13-cv-379,
`
`Doc. No. 63 at 2.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 40-5 Filed 12/27/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1206
`Case 6:14-cv-00553-MHS Document 56 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 640
`
`Second, EST accuses each Defendant of infringing both the ’594 Patent and the ITC
`
`Patents, and provides nearly identical description of the accused products:
`
`communications or computing devices, or components thereof, including for
`example but without limitation, smartphone handsets, tablet computers, laptop
`computers, and other communication- and/or computing-capable consumer
`electronic devices, such as [Individual Defendant]’s [device model name] device
`and other similar devices embodying [one of the patents-in-suit].1
`
`Thus, the Court finds that it is likely that this case will present common issues of both law and
`
`fact that are best considered in a single proceeding.
`
`Finally, formal discovery has not begun in this case, and the Court has not even entered a
`
`scheduling order yet. This weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be stayed pending resolution of the
`
`ITC investigation. Such stay shall encompass the entire case, i.e., all Defendants and both the
`
`ITC Patents and the ’594 Patent. It is therefore ORDERED that Case Numbers 6:14-cv-553-
`
`MHS (LEAD), 6:14-cv-554-MHS (Motorola); 6:14-cv-555-MHS (Samsung); 6:14-cv-614-MHS
`
`(HTC Corp.); and 6:14-cv-615-MHS (LG) are STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY
`
`CLOSED. The parties may move to reopen the case after disposition of the ITC investigation.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`1 Compare Case No. 6:14-cv-614; Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 40 (Compl. Against HTC); Case No. 6:14-cv-553, Doc. No. 9 at
`¶ 33 (Am. Compl. Against Samsung); Case No. 6:14-cv-553, Doc. No. 11 at ¶ 40 (Am. Compl. Against
`Motorola); and Case No. 6:14-cv-615, Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 41 (Compl. Against LG).
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 4th day of November, 2014.
`
`