Envisiontec, Inc. v. Formlabs, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER Re: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY 47 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Stay and this case is hereby stayed pending the PTABs decision whether to institute IPR 47 . If the IPR petition is granted, th e stay will remain in effect until the PTAB makes its final determination in IPR. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report within 14 days of the PTAB' decision on whether to grant IPR. If IPR is granted, IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report within 14 days of the PTAB's final determination. Should the PTAB find that Plaintiff's '472 Patent is valid as to some or all of its claims, Plaintiff has LEAVE TO AM END its Second Amended Complaint within 20 days of informing the Court of the PTAB's final determination. Alternatively, if the PTAB determines that the '472 Patent is invalid, Plaintiff has LEAVE TO AMEND the claims unaffected by the '472 Patent's validity within 20 days of informing the Court of the PTAB's final determination. Scheduling Conference VACATED. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENVISIONTEC, INC., 12 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. 14 FORMLABS, INC. 15 16 17 18 Defendant. I. CV 16-06812-RSWL-RAOx ORDER Re: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [47] INTRODUCTION This action arises from Plaintiff EnvisionTEC 19 Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for patent infringement 20 against Defendant Formlabs, Inc. (“Defendant”). 21 Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s sales and use of an 22 apparatus for manufacturing three-dimensional (“3D”) 23 objects purportedly infringes on Plaintiff’s technology 24 for separating a 3D printed object from its printer as 25 stated in Plaintiff’s Patent, “Apparatus and Method for 26 the Non-Destructive Separation of Hardened Material 27 Layers From a Flat Construction Plane,” U.S. Patent No. 28 7,195,472 (“’472 Patent”). 1 1 Currently before the Court is Defendant’s unopposed 2 Motion to Stay the case (“Motion”) pending the U.S. 3 Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) inter partes 4 review (“IPR”) of the ‘472 Patent. Having reviewed all 5 papers submitted pertaining to this Motion, the Court 6 NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: the Court GRANTS 7 Defendant’s Motion to Stay pending inter partes review. 8 9 A. 10 II. BACKGROUND Factual Background Plaintiff develops, manufactures, and sells 11 professional grade 3D printing technologies, equipment, 12 and services. Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Defendant offers a 13 wide array of 3D printing services and markets its 14 products throughout the U.S., as well as 15 internationally. 16 Id. at ¶ 14. On March 27, 2007, the USPTO issued Plaintiff the 17 ’472 Patent. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff displays its 18 Patent on its website, listing the patent number, 19 title, and issuance date. Id. at ¶ 15. Defendant 20 allegedly infringed and continues to infringe on Claims 21 10 and 14 of the ‘472 Patent. Id. at ¶ 18. These 22 Claims provide the method by which Plaintiff separates 23 its 3D printed objects from its printer. 24 23. Id. at ¶¶ 20, Claim 10 relies on Claim 9 and Claim 14 relies on 25 both Claims 9 and 12. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 29, 33, 35. 26 9 states the following: 27 An apparatus for the separation of a material 28 layer that is hardened on a flat plane, which 2 Claim 1 serves as a reference, the apparatus comprising 2 a flexible, elastic separating layer arranged 3 between plane and material layer, the elastic 4 separating layer comprising a gel-like elastic 5 material that is applied directly to the plane. 6 Id. at ¶ 26. Claim 10 states the following: 7 The apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the 8 gel-like layer has an adhesion to the plane 9 that is greater by a multiple than adhesion of 10 the gel-like layer to the hardened material 11 layer. 12 Id. at ¶ 29. Claim 12 states the following: 13 The apparatus according to claim 9, further 14 comprising a lateral frame that, in combination 15 with the plane, forms a kind of holding basin 16 for nonhardened material on a side of the 17 gel-like separating layer. 18 Id. at ¶ 33. Finally, Claim 14 states the following: 19 The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein 20 the holding basin comprises a frame and a 21 bottom plate and together the holding basin and 22 the gel-like separating layer are an 23 exchangeable unit. 24 Id. at ¶ 35. 25 Defendant’s “Form 2” and “Form 1+” printers include 26 resin tanks designed to allow separation between a 3D 27 printed object made in the 3D printer, and the surface 28 upon which it is printed. Id. at ¶ 23. 3 Plaintiff 1 alleges that these resin tanks infringe on Claims 10 2 and 14 of the ‘472 Patent. Id. at ¶ 18. 3 B. Procedural Background 4 On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed its 5 Complaint [1]. On November 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed 6 its First Amended Complaint [27]. The parties 7 stipulated to allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended 8 Complaint (“SAC”) and after the Court’s approval, 9 Plaintiff filed its SAC on February 2, 2017 [35, 38, 10 39]. On February 16, 2017, Defendant filed its Answer 11 [40]. On April 14, 2017, Defendant filed a petition 12 for IPR with the United States Patent Office’s Patent 13 Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) asserting Claims 9-15 14 of the ’472 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 15 and 103. Def.’s Motion to Stay (“Mot.”) 1:8-11. On 16 April 14, 2017, Defendant also filed the instant Motion 17 to Stay [47]. 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 A. Legal Standard 20 “Courts have the inherent power to manage their 21 dockets and stay proceedings, including the authority 22 to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO [IPR].” 23 Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. 24 Cir. 1988). Although the district court is not 25 required to stay judicial proceedings pending IPR, 26 “there is a liberal policy in favor of granting motions 27 to stay proceedings pending the outcome of [IPR], 28 especially in cases that are still in the initial 4 1 stages of litigation and where there has been little or 2 no discovery.” Nanometrics, Inc. v. Nova Measuring 3 Instruments, Ltd., No. C 06-2252 SBA, 2007 WL 627920, 4 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007); but see Aylus 5 Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. C-13-4700 EMC, 2014 6 WL 5809053, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014)(“a Court is 7 under no obligation to delay its own proceedings where 8 parallel litigation is pending before PTAB”)(internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). 10 The party moving for a stay bears the burden to 11 persuade the court that a stay is appropriate. 12 Netlist, Inc. v. Smart Storage Sys., Inc., No. 13 13-cv-5889-YGR, 2014 WL 4145412, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14 21, 2014). Three factors are significant in analyzing 15 whether to stay proceedings pending IPR: (1) whether 16 discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been 17 set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in 18 question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay 19 would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical 20 disadvantage to the nonmoving party. Universal Elecs. 21 v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 22 1028, 1030-31 (C.D. Cal. 2013)(internal quotation marks 23 and citation omitted). 24 B. Analysis 25 1. 26 27 28 Defendant’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED a. Discovery is Not Complete and a Trial Date Has Not Been Set The Court first looks to whether the litigation has 5 1 progressed significantly such that a stay would be 2 disfavored. The status of discovery, claim 3 construction, trial setting, and the Court's 4 expenditure of resources are all considerations bearing 5 on this factor. See Universal, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 6 1031-32. 7 This factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion 8 because this case is in the initial stages of 9 litigation. Plaintiff filed its SAC on February 2, 10 2017, and after Defendant filed its Answer on February 11 16, 2017, only the instant Motion has been filed thus 12 far. The parties have not commenced discovery and the 13 Court has not issued a Scheduling Order. Defendant 14 filed its IPR petition on April 14, 2017, less than 15 three months after Plaintiff filed its SAC. But cf. 16 Universal, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 1031 (factor weighed 17 against stay when Defendant waited a year to file its 18 IPR and the court had already spent substantial effort 19 construing claims). This timeline is evidence that the 20 case is still in its beginning phases. Courts have 21 concluded that a case in its beginning phases weighs in 22 favor of a stay, even when there has been a significant 23 passage of time since the filing of the case. Finjan, 24 Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., No. C 13-03133 SBA, 2017 WL 25 1150283, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)(finding that 26 the stage of litigation factor weighed in favor of 27 granting a stay even where the parties engaged in fact 28 discovery and claim construction because the parties 6 1 had yet to undertake the more significant and costly 2 stages of litigation including expert discovery and 3 preparing summary judgment motions). Thus, this factor 4 weighs in favor of granting a stay. 5 b. 6 7 A Stay Will Simplify the Issues in Question and Trial of the Case The second factor to consider is whether granting 8 the stay will simplify the issues in question and trial 9 of the case. “[W]aiting for the outcome of the 10 reexamination could eliminate the need for trial if the 11 claims are cancelled or, if the claims survive, 12 facilitate trial by providing the court with expert 13 opinion of the PTO and clarifying the scope of the 14 claims.” Target Therapeutics, Inc. v. SciMed Life 15 Systems, Inc., No. C-94-20775 RPA (EAI), 1995 WL 20470, 16 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 1995). 17 Here, the IPR’s review process could significantly 18 simplify the issues because all challenged claims could 19 be reexamined. Defendant has petitioned for IPR of 20 Claims 9-15 of the ‘472 Patent which includes Claims 10 21 and 14 which are the basis of Plaintiff’s infringement 22 action against Defendant. Therefore, all challenged 23 claims could be reviewed and evaluated by an expert, 24 giving the Court valuable information and precluding 25 some challenges. 26 1032. See Universal, 943 F. Supp. 2d at Defendant has agreed not to litigate any 27 invalidity challenge presented to and considered by the 28 PTAB, which has the potential to further reduce the 7 1 complexity of future litigation by limiting the amount 2 of challenged claims. Consequently, this factor also 3 weighs in favor of granting a stay. 4 c. 5 6 A Stay Would Not Unduly Prejudice or Present a Clear Tactical Advantage The final factor the Court considers is whether a 7 stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical 8 disadvantage to the non-moving party. Courts have held 9 that a stay does not unduly prejudice or present a 10 clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party if 11 the moving party seeks it at the earliest stage of 12 litigation. See Ignite USA, LLC v. Pacific Market 13 Int’l, LLC, No. 14 856, 2014 WL 2505166, at *2-3 (N.D. 14 Ill. May 29, 2014)(holding defendant’s motion to stay 15 filed less than two months after receiving notice of a 16 patent infringement complaint diminished the effect of 17 any potential tactical advantage it could incur). 18 Additionally, a stay would likely not cause 19 Plaintiff prejudicial harm because Plaintiff agreed not 20 to oppose the Motion in return for Defendant agreeing 21 not to litigate any invalidity challenge that Defendant 22 presents in its IPR petition that is considered by the 23 PTAB and to be bound by the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 24 315(e) in the event of a final written decision from 25 the PTAB. Mot. 5:15-20. Moreover, the general 26 prejudice of having to wait for resolution is not a 27 persuasive reason to deny a motion to stay. Wonderland 28 Nurserygoods Goods Co., Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc., No. 8 1 EDCV 14-01153-VAP (SPx), 2015 WL 1809309, at *4 (C.D. 2 Cal. Apr. 20, 2015). 3 Staying the case is not premature even though the 4 PTAB has yet to grant the IPR petition because it will 5 only minimally delay the case. The parties will know 6 by July 14, 2017 whether the PTAB will grant IPR, and 7 the PTAB must issue a final determination no later than 8 one year from accepting the review. 9 316. 35 U.S.C. §§ 314, Though this could potentially delay the 10 litigation, the agreed upon binding nature of the 11 results would likely assist the parties and this Court 12 in saving resources and moving future litigation 13 forward. Furthermore, “it is not uncommon for [] 14 [courts] to grant stays pending reexamination prior to 15 the [PTAB] deciding to reexamine the patent.” See 16 Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 17 11–CV–02168–EJD, 2011 WL 4802958, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18 11, 2011). Because Plaintiff does not oppose the stay 19 and delay of litigation is not reason enough to deny a 20 stay, the third and final factor weighs in favor of 21 granting a stay. 22 23 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS 24 Defendant’s Motion to Stay and this case is hereby 25 stayed pending the PTAB’s decision whether to institute 26 IPR [47]. If the IPR petition is granted, the stay 27 will remain in effect until the PTAB makes its final 28 determination in IPR. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 9 1 parties shall file a joint status report within 14 days 2 of the PTAB’s decision on whether to grant IPR. If IPR 3 is granted, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties 4 shall file a joint status report within 14 days of the 5 PTAB’s final determination. 6 Should the PTAB find that Plaintiff’s ‘472 Patent 7 is valid as to some or all of its claims, Plaintiff has 8 LEAVE TO AMEND its Second Amended Complaint within 20 9 days of informing the Court of the PTAB’s final 10 determination. Alternatively, if the PTAB determines 11 that the ‘472 Patent is invalid, Plaintiff has LEAVE TO 12 AMEND the claims unaffected by the ‘472 Patent’s 13 validity within 20 days of informing the Court of the 14 PTAB’s final determination. Scheduling Conf. VACATED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: June 6, 2017 17 s/ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior U.S. District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?