Yufa v. Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc.

Filing 136

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 132 Motion to Stay (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

7

Case No. 09-cv-00968-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY

v.
9
LIGHTHOUSE WORLDWIDE
SOLUTIONS INC.,

10

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 132

12
13

INTRODUCTION

14

In this patent infringement case, Plaintiff Aleksander L. Yufa alleges that Defendant

15

Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions, Inc. infringed upon his patent for particle detectors and

16

reference voltage comparators (the “‘983 Patent”).1 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s

17

Motion to Stay. Dkt. No. 132. Defendant requests a stay until four of Plaintiff’s other cases

18

involving the ‘983 Patent, which are currently on appeal, are finally adjudicated.2 Id. at 2. It

19

argues that those four cases involve the same legal issue at the heart of its defense in this case:

20

whether a court could find that a particle detector with a reference voltage infringes a patent which

21

specifically disclaims the use of a reference voltage. Defendant maintains that a stay will save the

22

parties and Court time and money, while a refusal to stay will cost Defendant substantial fees and

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The factual background of this case is set forth in the Court’s October 10, 2014 Order re: Motion
to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 126.
2
Plaintiff has initiated at least eight other cases alleging infringement of the ‘983 Patent: (1) Yufa
v. Hach Ultra Analytics, Inc., (D. Or.), 1:09-cv-03022 PA, filed: 2009; (2) Yufa v. Particle
Measuring Systems, Inc., (N.D. Cal.), 4:09-cv-01388 PJH, filed: 2009; (3) Yufa v. TSI, Inc., (N.D.
Cal.), 4:09-cv-01315 KAW, filed: 2009; (4) Yufa v. Rees Scientific Corp., (C.D. Cal.), 2:10-cv03575 MMM (FMOx), filed: 2010; (5) Yufa v. TSI, Inc., (C.D. Cal.), 8:12-cv-01614 FMO
(JCGx), filed: 2012; (6) Yufa v. USA (CAFC), 1:08-cv-0670, filed: 2008; (7) Yufa v. Met. One
Instruments, Inc., (D. Or.), 1:08-cv-03016 CL, filed: 2008; and (8) Yufa v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
(C.D. Cal.), 2:06-cv-03923 BRO (FFMx), filed: 2006.

1
2

costs to prepare a Motion for Summary Judgment or trial and subsequent appeals. Id.
Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the other ‘983 Patent cases “are absolutely

3

irrelevant to this case based on the fact[ ] that they are for different products of the different

4

particle detectors manufacturers.” Opp’n at 5, Dkt. No. 133. The Court finds this matter suitable

5

for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the January 29, 2015 hearing. See Fed. R.

6

Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

7

LEGAL STANDARD

8

“A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is

9

‘incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Fuller v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Amerigas Propane, Inc., 2009 WL 2390358, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) (quoting Rivers v.

12

Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)). In considering whether a stay is

13

appropriate, the Court should weigh three factors: “[1] the possible damage which may result from

14

the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go

15

forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating

16

of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (quoting

17

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 99 U.S. 248,

18

254-55 (1936))). If there is “even a fair possibility” of harm to the opposing party, the moving

19

party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.”

20

Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005).

21

DISCUSSION

22

Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court finds that good causes exists to stay these

23

proceedings. This case was previously stayed for approximately three years, from August 4, 2009

24

until October 15, 2012, due to the reexamination of the ‘983 Patent. Dkt. Nos. 42, 78. On

25

December 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting the claims that

26

remained after reexamination. Dkt. No. 83. The only remaining claim was amended to include

27

the text “without using a reference voltage to convert each of said voltage value signals.” Despite

28

Plaintiff’s argument that different products are involved in his other cases, the same legal issue in
2

1

this case with respect to the scope of the ‘983 Patent is currently before the Federal Circuit Court

2

of Appeals, based on four district courts separately finding that four different defendant’s

3

respective particle detectors did not infringe Plaintiff’s patents because the particle detectors had a

4

reference voltage. Kanach Decl., ¶13, Dkt. No. 132-1. These cases are:

5

(1) Yufa v. Hach Ultra Analytics, Inc., (D. Or.), 1:09-cv-03022 PA, filed: 2009;

6

(2) Yufa v. TSI, Inc., (N.D. Cal.), 4:09-cv-01315 KAW, filed: 2009;

7

(3) Yufa v. TSI, Inc., (C.D. Cal.), 8:12-cv-01614 FMO (JCGx), filed: 2012; and

8

(4) Yufa v. Lockheed Martin Corp., (C.D. Cal.), 2:06-cv-03923 BRO (FFMx), filed: 2006.

9

In the Lockheed Martin case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting
Lockheed Martin’s motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff has a pending writ of certiorari to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the United States Supreme Court. Id., Exs. A-C. As the outcome of the Federal Circuit’s pending

12

decisions will likely influence the claims in this case, and possibly create an opportunity for

13

settlement or dismissal, both parties may suffer unnecessary hardship or inequity if required to go

14

forward. Further, a stay will not prejudice Plaintiff as no trial has been set in this case and he may

15

continue to pursue the four cases on appeal.
CONCLUSION

16

In summary, having considered the factors necessary for a stay and balancing the

17
18

competing interests which will be affected, the Court concludes it would best serve the interests of

19

the parties and judicial economy to stay this case. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Stay these

20

proceedings is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court shall administratively close the case file. Upon final adjudication and

21
22

resolution of the four cases on appeal, Plaintiff may file a request that the Court lift the stay in this

23

matter.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: January 9, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Case No. 09-cv-00968-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

LIGHTHOUSE WORLDWIDE
SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendant.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 1/9/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Aleksandr L. Yufa
698 Cypress Avenue
Colton, CA 92324

19
20

Dated: 1/9/2015

21
22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

27
28
4