Case 1:19-cv-00873-ADA Document 41 Filed 12/16/19 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`NEODRON, LTD.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HP INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`NEODRON, LTD.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1-19-CV-00819-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1-19-CV-00873-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1-19-CV-00874-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1-19-CV-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1-19-CV-00903-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00873-ADA Document 41 Filed 12/16/19 Page 2 of 6
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`Before the Court are the motions to stay filed by Defendants Dell Technologies Inc.
`
`(“Dell”); HP Inc. (“HP”); Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”); Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”);
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”). Dell ECF
`
`No. 21, HP ECF No. 22, Microsoft ECF No. 24, Amazon ECF No. 15, Samsung ECF No. 18.
`
`Plaintiff Neodron Ltd. (“Neodron”) filed a timely Response to all motions to stay on September 6,
`
`2019. Dell ECF No. 32, HP ECF No. 31, Microsoft ECF No. 29, Amazon ECF No. 21, Samsung
`
`ECF No. 29. The arguments of the parties are relatively identical. As such, the Court will address
`
`and cite to the earliest case number as a general reference. The Court has considered the Motions,
`
`all relevant filings, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that
`
`Defendants’ motions should be DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Neodron filed suit against Dell, HP, Microsoft, Amazon, and Samsung alleging patent
`
`infringements on June 28, 2019. ECF No. 1. Neodron has additional claims filed against
`
`Defendants that are pending before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). ECF No. 21 at
`
`5. Defendants filed these motions to stay the above styled cases on the same date arguing that the
`
`legal factors weigh in favor of staying the case until the ITC resolves the other claims. Id. at 5–6.
`
`Neodron filed its response arguing the factors weigh against staying this case because the claims
`
`pending before the ITC are unrelated and staying the case would prejudice Neodron. ECF No. 38
`
`at 4–5.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Whether to stay a case falls within the Court’s inherent discretional authority. In re Ramu
`
`Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The stay of a pending matter is ordinarily within the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00873-ADA Document 41 Filed 12/16/19 Page 3 of 6
`
`trial court’s wide discretion to control the course of litigation, which includes authority to control
`
`the scope and pace of discovery.”) (citations omitted); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706
`
`(1997). Determining whether to issue a discretionary stay “calls for the exercise of judgment,
`
`which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`
`299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). Ultimately, the proponent has the burden to “make out a clear case of
`
`hardship or inequity in being required to go forward if there is even a fair possibility that the stay
`
`for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” In re Davis, 730 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir.
`
`1984) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). “[W]hen granting a stay pending resolution of another
`
`case, the court must consider the time expected for resolution of that case. The resultant stay must
`
`not be of immoderate or indefinite duration.” Clark v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 1:16-CV-910-
`
`RP, 2017 WL 1435762, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2017) (citations omitted). In determining
`
`whether a stay is proper, a district court should consider, among other factors, (1) the potential
`
`prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action
`
`is not stayed; and (3) judicial resources. Yeti Coolers, LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:17-
`
`CV-342-RP, 2018 WL 2122868 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2018).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`At issue in this case is whether defendants meet their burden to establish a clear harm or
`
`inequity should the cases proceed. The Court first considers the potential prejudice to the non-
`
`moving party. Defendants argue Neodron would not be unduly prejudiced if the Court granted the
`
`motion to stay. ECF No. 21 at 9–11. Among the five defendants, there are two primary arguments
`
`regarding this factor. The first argument is Neodron is creating its own harm by filing these actions
`
`separately, and therefore is not prejudiced by the proponent’s motion. Id. The second argument is
`
`the only harm is the delay of monetary damages. Id. Defendants point to other district courts who
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00873-ADA Document 41 Filed 12/16/19 Page 4 of 6
`
`held the delay of monetary damages does not rise to prejudice. Id. However, none of the cited
`
`cases are controlling, and thus only serve as examples of other courts exercising discretion.
`
`Neodron responds that a delay would prejudice Neodron’s interest in obtaining an
`
`expeditious resolution to its claim. ECF No. 32 at 10–11. Additionally, Neodron also argues the
`
`estimated fourteen-month delay does not account for the possibility of a longer delay from an
`
`appeal of the ITC holding should the ITC find in favor of defendants. Id. Neodron further argues
`
`that a delay might risk loss of evidence and witnesses. Id.
`
`After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds Defendants’
`
`arguments are not persuasive. There is a distinct possibility for an extended and immoderate delay
`
`should any party appeal the final judgment from the ITC. Rather than a fourteen–month delay, the
`
`case would likely be stayed for a period of more than two years, which is one-tenth of a patent’s
`
`term. While Neodron’s argument that witnesses and evidence might be lost is tenuous, extended
`
`delay would likely prejudice Neodron’s interests in protecting its patents and an expeditious
`
`resolution to the litigation.
`
`In light of the possibility of harm to Neodron, Defendants must show a clear hardship or
`
`inequity should the case proceed. Davis, 730 F.2d at 178. Defendants argue that they would suffer
`
`hardship due to the difficulty of defending two fronts in what Defendants consider parallel and
`
`duplicative proceedings. ECF No. 21 at 11. This, however, seems to be an overgeneralization. The
`
`more probable scenario is the claims would be handled individually or in small clusters rather than
`
`being consolidated into one action. While Neodron’s claims before the Court involve the same
`
`products as its claims before the ITC, the patents are not the same. ECF No. 32 at 7–9. The
`
`inventors are not the same. Id. In fact, only one out of five inventors overlaps with the ITC claims.
`
`Id. Thus, Defendants will have to defend separate actions regardless of whether a stay is granted,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00873-ADA Document 41 Filed 12/16/19 Page 5 of 6
`
`the only difference being the timing of the litigation. Further, Neodron offers and agrees to a cross-
`
`use agreement for discovery which would alleviate the Defendants’ duplicative discovery
`
`concerns. Id. at 9. For at least these reasons, the Defendants fail to show a clear hardship or inequity
`
`in defending the present claims.
`
`Finally, the Court considers the Defendants’ arguments regarding judicial economy.
`
`Defendants allege continuing without a stay risks duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings.
`
`ECF No. 21 at 12–14. Neodron argues there is no risk of duplicative litigation because the present
`
`claims involve different patents, terms, witnesses, and inventors. Id. at 7–9. And, as described
`
`above, to minimize the risk of duplicate discovery, Neodron proposes a cross-use agreement. ECF
`
`No. 32 at 9. Neodron also argues a stay will not save the Court or parties time or expense because
`
`the Court will still have to conduct claim construction because the ITC claims are different claims.
`
`Id. Therefore, the Court concludes that it is unlikely that staying the above styled cases would
`
`result in a more efficient and economical process.
`
`Considering the above, the Court concludes that neither the facts of these cases nor relevant
`
`case law support granting Defendants’ motions to stay. It seems apparent that granting the motion
`
`would both work prejudice against Neodron and compromise judicial economy. Further, none of
`
`the Defendants have demonstrated a clear hardship or inequity in allowing the case to proceed.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Stay is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00873-ADA Document 41 Filed 12/16/19 Page 6 of 6
`
`SIGNED this 16th day of December 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`6
`
`