throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 636-3 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 32255
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 636-3 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 32255
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00225-JRG Document 205 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 7494Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 636-3 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 32256
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`












`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) Motion to Stay Pending Ex
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00225-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RAMOT AT TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY
`LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 10,270,535, No. 10,033,465, and No. 10,461,866 (the
`
`“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 107.) On November 19, 2020, the Court held a Status Conference on the
`
`Motion and related briefing. Having considered the Motion, the related briefing, the arguments
`
`presented, and the relevant authority, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be and
`
`hereby is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons herein.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. (“Ramot”) alleges Defendant Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. (“Cisco”) infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,270,535 (the “’535 Patent”); U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,033,465 (the “’465 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,461,866 (the “’866 Patent”). (Dkt.
`
`No. 48.)
`
`Cisco previously filed an Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,270,535 and No. 10,033,465 (the “Motion to Stay Pending IPR”). (Dkt. No. 36.)
`
`The Court denied the Motion to Stay Pending IPR without prejudice, noting that no decision on
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00225-JRG Document 205 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 7495Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 636-3 Filed 03/01/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 32257
`
`institution of the inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) had yet been made, and instructing Cisco that it
`
`could subsequently seek a stay “if and when IPR proceedings are instituted by the PTAB.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 54.)
`
`The Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) subsequently denied institution of the IPRs,
`
`and Cisco filed Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination on all three patents-in-suit. (Dkt. No. 107.)
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) found substantial new questions of
`
`patentability as to each of the asserted claims in the patents-in-suit, granting all Requests for
`
`Reexamination, and Cisco filed the present Motion. (Id.) Subsequently, the PTO issued Office
`
`Actions rejecting all challenged claims of the ’465 and ’866 Patents. (Dkt. Nos. 171, 180.) The
`
`PTO has not yet made an initial determination as to the ’535 Patent. (See 11/19/2020 Status
`
`Conference Tr.)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to stay
`
`proceedings. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “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 Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 356 F.Supp.2d
`
`660, 662 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (citing Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 69 F.Supp.2d 404, 406
`
`(W.D.N.Y. 1999)).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Cisco requests a stay pending resolution of the ex parte reexams, arguing that (1) such a
`
`stay would not prejudice Ramot because it does not compete with Cisco, does not practice the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00225-JRG Document 205 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 7496Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 636-3 Filed 03/01/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 32258
`
`asserted patents, and can be adequately compensated through monetary damages for any alleged
`
`infringement; (2) a stay would avoid duplicative litigation because the PTO found substantial new
`
`questions of patentability exist as to each asserted claim in the present action; and (3) the stage of
`
`the case favors a stay because Cisco immediately filed the present motion when the PTO denied
`
`institution on its IPRs but granted its reexam requests. (Dkt. No. 107.)
`
`Ramot opposes a stay, arguing that Cisco merely refiled its inter partes review petitions as
`
`ex parte reexaminations, and now re-files its motion for a prejudicial stay. (Dkt. No. 110.)
`
`Specifically, Ramot argues that (1) a stay would prejudice Ramot because this case has been
`
`pending for a lengthy time and ex parte reexams generally remain pending for over two years; (2)
`
`any issue simplification is speculative because the claims could survive unscathed or be modified
`
`without colorable differences with respect to infringement; and (3) the proceedings are in late
`
`stages, with discovery complete and trial impending. (Id.)
`
`Granting a stay would prejudice Ramot, the nonmoving party, by delaying its resolution of
`
`the case. Soverain, 356 F.Supp.2d at 662. Ramot “has an interest in timely enforcing its patents.
`
`This remains true regardless [of] whether the parties’ products directly compete,” or whether
`
`Ramot currently practices the patents. ThinkOptics, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 2014 WL
`
`4477400, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2014).
`
`Nevertheless, a stay has the potential to simplify the issues in questions and the trial of the
`
`case; however, such potential for simplification will be more certain in time. Soverain, 356
`
`F.Supp.2d at 662. Of the eight currently-asserted claims, six have been rejected. (Dkt. Nos. 171,
`
`180.) These rejections, however, are only preliminary; should they become final, the case may
`
`become greatly simplified. Also, no decision as of yet has been made as to the two claims asserted
`
`from the ’535 Patent. Only time will tell whether any of the eight asserted claims will remain,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00225-JRG Document 205 Filed 11/23/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 7497Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 636-3 Filed 03/01/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 32259
`
`uncancelled and unmodified, after the reexamination procedure. Therefore, while the ex parte
`
`reexams have the potential to simplify the issues in question and the trial of this case, such
`
`simplification is currently more speculative than factual.
`
`The late stage of the trial of this case weighs against a stay. Discovery is complete and a
`
`trial date has been set. Soverain, 356 F.Supp.2d at 662. “Given the resources that the parties and
`
`the Court have already invested in this case, staying the case, based solely on speculation of what
`
`might possibly happen during reexamination, would be inefficient and inappropriate.” Soverain,
`
`356 F.Supp.2d at 663.
`
`Having considered the prejudice to Ramot, the speculative nature of any simplification of
`
`issues, and the late stage of case development, the Court finds that the factors weigh against
`
`granting a stay at this juncture. Nevertheless, this denial is without prejudice, and Cisco may refile
`
`its Motion when more is known definitively.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Cisco’s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 10,270,535, No. 10,033,465, and No. 10,461,866 (Dkt. No. 107)
`
`should be and hereby is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
`
`
`
`4
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of November, 2020.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket