`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`and
`CORPORATION
`PANASONIC
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH
`AMERICA,
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00447-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§ §
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Stay Action Pending ITC Determination (the
`
`“Motion”) filed by Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North
`
`America (“Panasonic”). (Dkt. No. 12.) In the Motion, Panasonic appears specially in the case to
`
`move to stay all proceedings in the above-captioned matter until the determination of the United
`
`States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in a parallel proceeding becomes final. (Id. at 1.)1
`
`The ITC instituted an investigation, In the Matter of Certain Location-Sharing Systems, Related
`
`Software Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1347
`
`(U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n) (hereinafter “ITC Action”), on December 22, 2022. (Id.) Plaintiff AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) does not oppose the Motion. (Id.)
`
`
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, a District Court “shall stay” parallel litigation “until the
`
`determination of
`
`the Commission becomes
`
`final”
`
`if certain conditions are met.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). First, the civil action before the District Court must “involv[e] parties that
`
`are also parties to a proceeding before the [ITC].” (Id.) Second, the claims for which the stay is
`
`
`1 Panasonic appears specially in the case “because AGIS has not yet served process on Panasonic.” (Dkt. No. 12 at 3.)
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00447-JRG Document 13 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 172
`
`requested must “involve[] the same issues” as those before the ITC. (Id.) Third, the stay must be
`
`requested by a respondent before the ITC within thirty days of being named as a respondent before
`
`the ITC, or within thirty days of the District Court action being filed, whichever is later. (Id.)
`
`
`
`The Court finds that all three requirements for a statutory stay have been met. First, the
`
`ITC Action and the above-captioned matter involve the same parties because AGIS is the
`
`complainant in the ITC Action and Panasonic is named as a respondent. (Dkt. No. 12 at 2.) Second,
`
`all patents-in-suit—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970, 9,445,251, 9,467,838, 9,749,829, and 9,820,123—
`
`are the subject of AGIS’s infringement allegations in the ITC Action. (Id.) Third, Panasonic is a
`
`respondent in the ITC Action and has filed its Motion within thirty days of the ITC’s institution of
`
`an investigation. (Id. at 2.) The statutory requirements for a stay having been met, the Court finds
`
`that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659, it is ORDERED that all action in the
`
`above-captioned matter is STAYED until further Order of this Court. It is further ORDERED that
`
`the parties file a joint notice in this case with attached supporting copies of any dispositive or
`
`partially dispositive action by the ITC.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of January, 2023.
`
`
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
