Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:5142
`
`Christopher Kao (SBN 237716)
` ckao@velaw.com
`Brock S. Weber (SBN 261383)
` bweber@velaw.com
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel.: 415.979.6900
`Fax: 415.651.8786
`
`Christine Yang (SBN 102048)
` chrisyang@sjclawpc.com
`LAW OFFICE OF S.J. CHRISTINE YANG
`17220 Newhope Street, Suite 101-102
`Fountain Valley, CA 92708
`Tel.: 714.641.4022
`Fax: 714.641.2082
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Kingston Technology Company, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
`COMPANY, INC. and KINGSTON
`TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`Defendants.
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
`COMPANY, INC.,
`Counterclaimant,
`
`vs.
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Counter-Defendant,
`
`Case No. 8:16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`DEFENDANT KINGSTON
`TECHNOLOGY COMPANY,
`INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND RENEWED MOTION TO
`STAY THE CASE PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Date: July 3, 2017
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 9B
`Judge: Honorable Cormac J. Carney
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:5143
`
`and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR,
`INC.,
`
`Third-Party Defendants.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`2
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:5144
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION ................................................................................................... 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................ 1
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 3
`A.
`The Parties .................................................................................................. 3
`B.
`Procedural History and Case Status ........................................................... 4
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................... 7
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 8
`I.
`The Case Should Be Stayed Pending the Completion of IPR Proceedings. ........ 8
`A.
`The Litigation is in the Early Stages. ......................................................... 8
`B.
`A Stay Will Simplify the Issues in This Case Because the PTAB
`Has Instituted IPR Proceedings on Most of Polaris’ Asserted
`Claims. ...................................................................................................... 11
`A Stay Would Not Unduly Prejudice Polaris or Samsung. ..................... 15
`C.
`In the Alternative, the Court Should Grant an Extension to the
`Scheduling Order to Permit the Completion of Discovery. ............................... 19
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 21
`
`II.
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`i
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:5145
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Aten Int’l, Co. v. Emine Tech. Co.,
`No. SACV 09-0843 AG (MLGx), 2010 WL 1462110 (C.D. Cal.
`Apr. 12, 2010) ................................................................................................. 8, 10, 11
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2016-1599, --- F.3d. ----, 2017 WL 1946961 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) ....... 2, 14
`Big Baboon, Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`No. CV 09-1198 SVW (SSx), 2011 WL 13124454 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011) ...... 9, 11
`Black Hills Media, LLC v. Pioneer Elecs. (USA) Inc.,
`No. CV 14-00471 SJO (PJWx), 2014 WL 4638170 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2014) .. 14, 16
`Convergence Techs. (USA) LLC v. Microloops Corp.,
`No. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD, 2012 WL 1232187 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) .................. 14
`Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Fujitsu Network Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. SACV 16-00437-AG-JPRx, 2016 WL 7507760 (C.D. Cal.
`Sept. 12, 2016) ........................................................................................... 7, 10, 11, 12
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .............................................................................................. 19
`Cygnus Telecomms. Tech. LLC v. United World Telecom, L.C.,
`385 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................... 14
`eSoft, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`505 F.Supp.2d 784 (D. Colo. 2007) .......................................................................... 10
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). ................................................................................ 7
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Yelp Inc.,
`No. C–13–03587 DMR, 2013 WL 6672451 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) ............ 13, 15
`Finjan, Inc. v. Fireeye, Inc.,
`No. C-13-03133 SBA, 2014 WL 2465267 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2014) ....................... 14
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 2, 12
`Gould v. Control Laser Corp.,
`705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................. 14
`In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC Patent Litig.,
`385 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2005). ..................................................................... 7
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`ii
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`5052295
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:5146
`
`Limestone Memory Sys. LLC v. Micron Tech.,
`No. SACV 15-0278-DOC (RNBx), 2016 WL 3598109 (C.D. Cal.
`Jan. 12, 2016) .................................................................................................. 8, 12, 16
`Locata LBS, LLC v. Yellowpages.com, LLC,
`No. LA CV13-07664 JAK (SHx), 2014 WL 8103949 (C.D. Cal. July 11,
`2014) .......................................................................................................................... 10
`Mophie, Inc. v. uNu Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 8:13-cv-01705-CAS (JCGx), 2014 WL 6775768 (C.D. Cal.
`Dec. 1, 2014) ......................................................................................................... 9, 10
`NetJumper Software, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 04–70366, 2008 WL 2761022 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2008) ................................. 9
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 5:13-cv-01356-EJD, 2014 WL 116340 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) .................... 15
`Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. The Hertz Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-10012 PSG (JEMx), 2013 WL 7158011 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2013) ......... 16
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-02168-EJD, 2011 WL 4802958 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011) ..................... 16
`Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata Operations, Inc.,
`No. SACV 16-02743 AG (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) ........................... passim
`Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Chimei Innolux Corp.,
`No. SACV 12-21-JST (JPRx), 2012 WL 7170593 (C.D. Cal.
`Dec. 19, 2012) ................................................................................................. 8, 15, 17
`Skip Hop, Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc.,
`No. CV 15-06339 SJO (AGRx), 2016 WL 7042093 (C.D. Cal.
`Mar. 15, 2016) ................................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. C-12-3970 RMW, 2013 WL 5225522 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013). ............. 15, 18
`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,
`No. SACV 12-01861 JGB (MLGx), 2013 WL 1716068 (C.D. Cal.
`Apr. 3, 2013) ......................................................................................................... 7, 15
`Tierravision, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-2170 DMS (BGS), 2012 WL 559993 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) ........ 8, 15
`Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.,
`943 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ............................................................. 2, 7, 15
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 13, 16
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:5147
`
`Wonderland Nursery Goods Co. v. Baby Trend, Inc.,
`No. EDCV 14-01153-VAP (SPx), 2015 WL 1809309 (C.D. Cal.
`Apr. 20, 2015) ....................................................................................................... 7, 10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 2, 19
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .............................................................................................. 12, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) .............................................................................................. 5, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:5148
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 3, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as this matter may be heard, Defendant Kingston Technology Company,
`Inc. (“Kingston”) will and hereby moves to stay this litigation pending final resolution
`of the inter partes review proceedings instituted by the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office on five of the patents asserted by Polaris Innovations Limited
`(“Polaris”) against Kingston.
`This Motion will be heard in the Courtroom of Judge Cormac J. Carney for the
`United States District Court in the Central District of California. The Court is located
`at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom 9B,
`411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516.
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities set forth below, the pleadings on file herein, and upon such other matters
`as may be presented to the Court at the time of the hearing.
`This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3,
`which took place on May 26, 2017. Counsel for Polaris opposes this Motion, and
`counsel for Samsung takes no position on Kingston’s request for a stay.
`
`Dated: June 5, 2017
`
`VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Christopher Kao
`Christopher Kao
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Kingston Technology Company, Inc.
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`1
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`7
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:5149
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Defendant Kingston Technology Company, Inc. (“Kingston”) respectfully
`renews its motion to stay this action pending final resolution of the Inter Partes
`Reviews (“IPRs”) that have now been instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) on five of the six asserted
`patents in this action.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Now that the PTAB has instituted IPRs on five of the six patents asserted by
`Plaintiff Polaris Innovations Limited (“Polaris”) against Kingston, the relevant factors
`and totality of the circumstances all weigh heavily in favor of granting Kingston’s
`Renewed Motion to Stay.
`This litigation is still at a relatively early stage. Discovery has not yet
`concluded, no expert discovery has occurred, and the Court has not construed any
`claim terms or decided summary judgment motions. Furthermore, discovery on
`Kingston’s counterclaims of antitrust violations against Polaris and Third-Party
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
`(collectively, “Samsung”) has only just barely begun. Kingston and Samsung have
`each served written discovery requests, but neither side has yet had to respond to those
`requests. And Kingston has not had the opportunity to depose any Samsung witnesses
`regarding Kingston’s counterclaims.
`In addition, Polaris only 10 days ago was granted leave by the Court to add a
`brand new defendant to the case, Kingston Technology Corporation (“Kingston
`Holding”), from which Polaris seeks substantial discovery, all from overseas affiliates
`of Kingston Holding. See Dkt. Nos. 226, 228; Ex. A to Decl. of Christopher Kao
`(“Kao Decl.”). The process of collecting and producing the (entirely irrelevant)
`documents sought by Polaris from numerous foreign countries will be time-
`consuming, and will require a further extension of the case schedule if this case is not
`stayed (as discussed further below).
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`1
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:5150
`
`On the other hand, the IPR proceedings pending before the PTAB are likely to
`substantially simplify the issues in this litigation, given that the PTAB has instituted
`Kingston’s petitions challenging five of the six asserted patents. By instituting the
`IPRs, the PTAB has confirmed that Kingston’s petitions demonstrated a “reasonable
`likelihood” that challenged claims are invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, the final
`written decisions by the PTAB in the IPR proceedings will very likely change or
`narrow the issues to be decided in this litigation. If any of the claims are invalidated,
`they cannot be asserted against Kingston in this case. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v.
`Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2295
`(May 19, 2014). Further, if any claims are amended during the IPR proceedings, the
`amendments will eliminate past damages, and the focus of this litigation would shift
`from the currently asserted claims to the amended claims. Indeed, in the IPR
`proceeding for asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,850,414, Polaris has already moved to
`cancel two of the three claims asserted against Kingston, and to authorize the addition
`of a newly drafted claim to the patent. See Ex. B to Kao Decl. at 1–2.
`In addition, the IPR proceedings will develop the intrinsic record for the
`patents-in-suit, which may impact and simplify how the asserted patent claims are
`construed in the litigation. See, e.g., Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2016-
`1599, --- F.3d. ----, 2017 WL 1946961 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (holding as an issue
`of first impression that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding
`can be relied on to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer during claim
`construction). This would have a direct and meaningful impact on the core issues of
`patent infringement and invalidity.
`Granting a stay will not unduly prejudice Polaris or Samsung,1 or give Kingston
`a clear tactical advantage. As a matter of law, mere delay caused by the stay is not
`unduly prejudicial. See, e.g., Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.,
`
`1 Counsel for Samsung has stated that it takes no position on Kingston’s Renewed
`Motion to Stay.
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 10 of 29 Page ID
` #:5151
`
`943 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“Mere delay in the litigation does not
`establish undue prejudice.”). Further, because Polaris is a non-practicing entity,
`Polaris can be adequately compensated through monetary damages and is not at risk
`of “irreparable harm,” such as lost sales or a loss of market share, if a stay is granted.
`Further, Kingston has not delayed in filing its motion, as Kingston promptly filed the
`IPR petitions and is requesting this stay shortly after the PTAB’s decisions on
`institution.
`For these reasons, and consistent with the objectives of Congress in providing
`these mechanisms for challenging patent validity, Kingston respectfully requests that
`the Court grant a stay of the litigation pending completion of the IPR proceedings. In
`the alternative, due to the fact that discovery on Kingston’s antitrust counterclaims is
`in its infancy, and the fact that a brand new party has been added to the case only a
`month before the Court’s current discovery deadline (see Dkt. No. 71, at 1), Kingston
`requests that the Court grant an extension to the case schedule as set forth in Part II of
`the Argument below, in order to give the parties an appropriate amount of time to
`complete fact and expert discovery.
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Parties
`A.
`Plaintiff Polaris is an Irish company with a purported office in Dublin, Ireland.
`(Dkt. No. 228 at ¶ 5.) Polaris’ business is the enforcement and licensing of patents,
`and it does not make or sell any product or service. Polaris is a wholly-owned
`subsidiary of Wi-LAN Inc. (Dkt. No. 63), a well-known non-practicing entity that
`“exists solely to enforce [its] patents . . . through licensing agreements and
`lawsuits[.]”2
`
`2 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/patent-licensing-
`company-wi-lan-continues-to-underwhelm-investors/article25009709/ (last accessed
`June 1, 2017).
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`3
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`10
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 11 of 29 Page ID
` #:5152
`
`Defendant Kingston is a leading provider of innovative computer memory
`products. Kingston makes and sells a wide variety of memory products, such as the
`Solid State Drives (“SSDs”) and Dual In-line Memory Modules (“DIMMs”) at issue
`in this case. Kingston is a U.S. company with its corporate headquarters located in
`Fountain Valley, California, and employs more than 650 people in the United States.
`Third-Party Defendant Samsung is a Korean multinational company involved in
`the manufacture and sale of many types of electronic devices and components,
`including semiconductors such as the dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”)
`chips and modules at issue in this case.
`B.
`Procedural History and Case Status
`Polaris filed its Complaint against Kingston in the Central District of California
`on February 19, 2016, alleging infringement of six patents. (Dkt. No. 1.) Kingston
`answered Polaris’ Complaint on April 18, 2016, including an affirmative defense that
`each asserted patent is invalid (Dkt. No. 31), and Kingston filed a First Amended
`Answer on May 23, 2016 (Dkt. No. 75).
`Kingston also diligently prepared petitions for IPR of each of the six patents-in-
`suit to demonstrate before the PTAB that each patent is invalid due to the teachings
`found in prior art patents and printed publications. In fact, Kingston filed IPRs
`against three of the six asserted patents about one month after Polaris identified the
`asserted claims for each patent and its infringement theories on July 8, 2016, pursuant
`to the parties’ agreed discovery plan (Dkt. No. 70). Kingston filed these IPRs before
`it was even required to disclose its invalidity contentions to Polaris on September 9,
`2016. (Id.) Specifically, Kingston filed petitions for IPR on August 16, 2016 against
`all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,438,057 (“the ’057 patent”); 6,850,414 (“the
`’414 patent”); and 7,315,454 (“the ’454 patent”). Those IPRs are proceeding before
`the PTAB under Case Nos. IPR2016-01621, -01622, and -01623, respectively. Two
`months later, on October 21 and 24, 2016, Kingston filed IPR petitions on all asserted
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,206,978 (“the ’978 patent”) and 7,334,150 (“the ’150
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`4
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 12 of 29 Page ID
` #:5153
`
`patent”). Those IPRs are proceeding before the PTAB under Case Nos. IPR2017-
`00114 and -00116, respectively.
`After filing these five IPR petitions, on October 31, 2016, Kingston filed a
`Motion to Stay the Case Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. No. 87). At this time the
`PTAB had not yet issued any institution decisions on Kingston’s petitions. In view of
`the fact that no IPRs had yet been instituted, the Court denied Kingston’s motion
`without prejudice on November 17, 2016 (Dkt. No. 90).
`On February 15, 2017, the PTAB instituted IPRs as to every claim in the ’057
`patent (and therefore every asserted claim), 5 of 8 total claims in the ’414 patent
`(including 2 of 3 asserted claims), and 6 of 7 total claims in the ’454 patent (including
`all asserted claims). See Ex. C to Kao Decl at 21; Ex. D to Kao Decl. at 23; Ex. E to
`Kao Decl. at 32. On March 29, 2017, the PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted claims
`of the ’150 patent. See Ex. F to Kao Decl. at 33. And on April 3, 2017, the PTAB
`instituted IPR on 8 of 14 total claims of the ’978 patent (including 3 of 7 asserted
`claims).3 See Ex. G to Kao Decl. at 33.
`Kingston also filed an IPR petition challenging the two asserted claims of
`asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,157,589 on November 10, 2016, but on May 2, 2017, the
`PTAB denied institution for this IPR petition. See Ex. H to Kao Decl. at 18.
`Nevertheless, the PTAB has now instituted IPRs on 5 of 6 patents, and 29 of the 36
`claims asserted by Polaris against Defendant Kingston in this case. See Ex. I to Kao
`Decl. at 2 (listing claims asserted by Polaris).
`Meanwhile, fact discovery in this litigation is ongoing. The parties have
`engaged in written discovery, document production, and depositions; however, the
`parties have not yet engaged in any expert discovery. Further, the Court has not
`
`3 By statute, the PTAB must issue final written decisions concerning invalidity in the
`first three IPRs filed by Kingston by February 15, 2018. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). For
`the IPRs on the next two instituted patents-in-suit, final written decisions are due by
`March 29, 2018 and April 3, 2018, respectively.
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`5
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 13 of 29 Page ID
` #:5154
`
`issued any claim constructions or decided any summary judgment motions.
`Moreover, the current discovery relates largely to the patent infringement claims
`asserted by Polaris against Kingston.
`On November 21, 2016, Kingston filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended
`Counterclaims and Add Third Party Defendants (see Dkt. Nos. 91-1, 92-1, 95),
`seeking to add counterclaims asserting antitrust violations against Polaris and
`Samsung. The Court granted Kingston’s motion on December 14, 2016 (Dkt. No.
`113). Samsung then filed a motion to dismiss Kingston’s claims on February 17,
`2017 (see Dkt. Nos. 155-2, 157, 164), and refused to participate in discovery on the
`counterclaims until the Court issued its decision on the motion. On March 30, 2017,
`the Court denied Samsung’s motion to dismiss in substantial part (Dkt. No. 202). In
`accordance with the Court’s order, Kingston filed its Third Amended Answer,
`Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims on May 1, 2017 (Dkt. No. 216), to which
`both Polaris and Samsung have now filed Answers (Dkt. Nos. 222, 224). On account
`of the delay caused by Samsung’s motion to dismiss, the parties only took their first
`steps toward discovery on Kingston’s antitrust counterclaims in May 2017, with the
`exchange of discovery requests and deposition notices, while responses remain
`forthcoming. Samsung has not yet produced any documents or presented any
`witnesses for deposition.
`In addition, on April 24, 2017, only two months prior to the existing Court-
`ordered discovery deadline, Polaris sought leave to add Kingston Holding as a new
`defendant to the case (Dkt. No. 209-1). Ten days ago, on May 26, 2017, the Court
`granted Polaris’ motion (Dkt. No. 226). As a result, discovery concerning an entirely
`new party to the case has not yet had an opportunity to commence. Polaris, however,
`has already indicated its intent to seek substantial discovery from Kingston Holding
`concerning information entirely held not by Kingston Holding, but by its foreign
`subsidiaries located around the world. See Ex. A to Kao Decl.
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`6
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 14 of 29 Page ID
` #:5155
`
`Given the early stage of discovery on Kingston’s antitrust claims, and now the
`addition of Kingston Holding to the case at Polaris’ request, the parties are all in
`agreement that adjustments will need to be made to the current case schedule, as all
`recognize that it will be impossible to meet the current June 29, 2017 deadline for
`close of discovery.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`“District Courts have broad discretion to stay judicial proceedings pending inter
`partes review.” Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Fujitsu Network Commc’ns, Inc., No.
`SACV 16-00437-AG-JPRx, 2016 WL 7507760, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016)
`(citing Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). A stay is
`“particularly justified where the outcome of the reexamination would be likely to
`assist the court in determining patent validity and, if the claims were cancelled in the
`reexamination, would eliminate the need to try the infringement issue.” In re Cygnus
`Telecomms. Tech., LLC Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
`In fact, there is a “liberal policy of granting motions to stay litigation pending the
`outcome of USPTO proceedings.” E.g. Wonderland Nursery Goods Co. v. Baby
`Trend, Inc., No. EDCV 14-01153-VAP (SPx), 2015 WL 1809309, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
`Apr. 20, 2015); Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC, No. SACV 12-01861
`JGB (MLGx), 2013 WL 1716068, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013).
`When evaluating a request to stay litigation pending a reexamination or IPR,
`district courts generally consider three factors: (1) whether discovery is complete and
`whether a trial date is set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and
`trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear
`tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party. See Universal Elecs., 943 F. Supp. 2d
`at 1030–31. In addition to these three factors, “the totality of the circumstances
`governs.” Id. at 1031.
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`7
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`14
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 15 of 29 Page ID
` #:5156
`
`ARGUMENT
`All three relevant factors favor a stay in this case: (1) discovery is still at a
`relatively early stage, as discovery is not yet complete and cannot be completed under
`the current schedule, (2) the determinations by the PTAB in the five instituted IPR
`proceedings will simplify the issues in litigation, and (3) a stay would not unduly
`prejudice Polaris, a non-practicing entity, or Samsung, and would not present a clear
`tactical advantage to Kingston because Kingston has not delayed in filing this motion
`to stay. In the alternative, Kingston requests that the Court grant an extension to the
`current Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 71), to allow for the completion of discovery
`concerning Kingston’s antitrust counterclaims and newly added Defendant Kingston
`Holding, which have only just begun.
`I.
`The Case Should Be Stayed Pending the Completion of IPR Proceedings.
`A.
`The Litigation is in the Early Stages.
`“The first factor is the stage of the proceedings, including ‘whether discovery is
`complete and whether a trial date has been set.’” Limestone Memory Sys. LLC v.
`Micron Tech., No. SACV 15-0278-DOC (RNBx), 2016 WL 3598109, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
`Jan. 12, 2016) (quoting Aten Int’l, Co. v. Emine Tech. Co., No. SACV 09-0843 AG
`(MLGx), 2010 WL 1462110, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2010)). The relatively early
`stage of this litigation weighs in favor of a stay. Indeed, it cannot be disputed that
`“there is more work ahead of the parties and the Court than behind the parties and the
`Court.” Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Chimei Innolux Corp., No. SACV 12-21-
`JST (JPRx), 2012 WL 7170593, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012); see Tierravision, Inc.
`v. Google, Inc., No. 11-cv-2170 DMS (BGS), 2012 WL 559993, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
`Feb. 21, 2012) (granting stay even where Markman briefs were soon due and parties
`had exchanged proposed claim constructions and extrinsic evidence).
`Discovery in the case is not yet complete. While Polaris and Kingston have
`engaged in discovery concerning Polaris’ patent infringement claims, significant work
`still remains for all parties before the close of discovery. For example, Polaris has
`
`Kingston’s Renewed Motion to Stay Pending IPR
`5052295
`
`8
`
`Case No. 16-cv-300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`15
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2007
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO Document 235 Filed 06/05/17 Page 16 of 29 Page ID
` #:5157
`
`added new defendant Kingston Holding to the patent case, and is seeking (improperly,
`in Defendant Kingston’s view) broad discovery of documents and information that
`reside not with Defendants Kingston and Kingston Holding, but rather with third-
`party foreign subsidiaries of Kingston Holding that are located outside the United
`States and do no business in the United States. See Ex. A to Kao Decl. Such
`extraordinary discovery measures would require a signifi