throbber
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
`
`

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