Smart Modular Technologies, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.

Filing 212

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/27/2018 ORDERING case STAYED pending the final outcome of Smart Modular's appeal to the Federal Circuit. CASE STAYED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM (Bar No. 174931)
[e-mail]
EDWARD H. SIKORSKI (Bar No. 208576)
[e-mail]
ERIN P. GIBSON (Bar No. 229305)
[e-mail]
DAVID R. KNUDSON (Bar No. 265461)
[e-mail]
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Telephone:
619.699.2700
Facsimile:
619.699.2701
RAJIV DHARNIDHARKA (Bar No.
234756)
[e-mail]
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone:
650-833-2000
Facsimile:
650-833-2001

MICHAEL F. HEAFEY (Bar No.
153499)
[e-mail]
RYAN A. LEWIS (Bar No. 307253)
[e-mail]
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
580 California Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ANUP M. SHAH (NC Bar No. 37042)
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
301 S. College Street, Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim Defendant SMART
MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff NETLIST, INC.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant,

18
19
v.

Case No. 2:12-CV-02319-TLN-EFB

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
CASE PENDING APPEAL OF RELATED
ACTION

20
NETLIST, INC.,
21
22
23

Defendant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff
Trial Date: None Set
Date Action Filed: September 10, 2012

24
25
26
27
28
DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO

STIPULATION AND ORDER / CASE NO. 2:12-CV-02319 TLN

1

Pursuant to L.R. 143 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 83, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Smart

2

Modular Technologies, Inc. (“Smart Modular”) and Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Netlist,

3

Inc. (“Netlist”) hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court to stay this action pending resolution of

4

Smart Modular’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 18-

5

01611) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s recent decision finding unpatentable the claims of

6

United States Patent No. 8,250,295 (“the ’295 patent”), which is asserted in this case. For the reasons

7

demonstrated below, good cause exists for the Court to stay this case pending Smart Modular’s appeal

8

to the Federal Circuit.

9

Several events have occurred since the Court declined to reinstitute the stay that warrant

10

another cessation of this litigation. As the Court is aware, on November 14, 2016 the Patent Trial and

11

Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found all of the asserted claims of the ’295 patent unpatentable, and reversed

12

the patent examiner’s previous inter partes reexamination decision. Smart Modular hereafter

13

reopened prosecution of the ’295 patent. The patent examiner ultimately rejected all asserted claims

14

of the ʼ295 patent. Smart Modular appealed the examiner’s rejection to the PTAB, and on December

15

12, 2017, the PTAB affirmed the patent examiner’s decision (See 12/12/17 Decision, attached as Ex.

16

1). On February 12, 2018, Smart Modular appealed the PTAB’s decision to the Federal Circuit. (See

17

2/12/18 Notice of Appeal, attached as Ex. 2).

18

Additionally Smart Modular, on August 11, 2017, amended its complaint to add two

19

additional patents. Netlist has reported that sales of the accused Netlist product from August 11,

20

2015 to the present are negligible or zero.

21

A stay is also warranted now, because the Court deferred scheduling any case dates or

22

deadlines pending its decision on Smart Modular’s Motion Dismiss and Motion to Strike Netlist,

23

Inc.’s Answer and Counterclaims. (See Dec. 14, 2017 Order, ECF No. 207). A stay of the case

24

would relieve the Court of having to rule on this pending motion and of having to enter a case

25

schedule.

26

Because a stay (1) may conserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources; (2) may promote

27

judicial economy or may simplify the issues for trial; (3) may not prejudice any party other than

28
DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO

-1WEST\280792508.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER / CASE NO. 2:12-CV-02319 TLN

1

Smart or Netlist, and (4) may be warranted because the Court has set no trial date or other case

2

deadlines, the parties respectfully request the Court approve this Stipulation and enter an Order the

3

case be stayed pending the final outcome of Smart Modular’s appeal to the Federal Circuit.

4

Respectfully submitted,

5
6

Dated: March 21, 2018

7

DLA PIPER LLP (US)
By: /s/ Sean C. Cunningham
SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM
EDWARD H. SIKORSKI
ERIN P. GIBSON
RAJIV DHARNIDHARKA
DAVID R. KNUDSON

8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff NETLIST, INC.

11
12
13

Dated: March 21, 2018

14

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
By:/s/ Michael F. Heafey
MICHAEL F. HEAFEY
ANUP M. SHAH
RYAN A. LEWIS

15
16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant SMART MODULAR
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2018

22
23
24

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO

-2WEST\280792508.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER / CASE NO. 2:12-CV-02319 TLN

1
2

ATTESTATION CLAUSE
I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been

3

obtained from its signatories.

4

Dated: March 21, 2018

/s/ Sean C. Cunningham
SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO

-3WEST\280792508.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER / CASE NO. 2:12-CV-02319 TLN