Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al

Filing 334

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Order by Hon. William Alsup denying 327 Motion to Stay.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 09-05659 WHA

ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR STAY
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
UPI SEMICONDUCTOR
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/

16
17

In February 2011, with the exception of limited jurisdictional discovery that has since

18

been completed, this entire action was stayed pending conclusion of the reexaminations of the

19

asserted patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Dkt. No. 267 at 10). That stay

20

remains in place.

21

In September 2011, notwithstanding the present stay, plaintiff filed a motion to stay this

22

action pending resolution of a new proceeding before the United States International Trade

23

Commission. The new ITC action is an enforcement proceeding based on the consent order

24

entered in a previous ITC action involving the same patents that are asserted here and some of the

25

same parties (Dkt. No. 327). Defendant UPI Semiconductor Corporation opposes plaintiff’s

26

motion (Dkt. No. 329). The motion has been fully briefed, but no hearing was requested.

27
28

Having considered all submissions from both sides, this order finds that due to the present
stay the motion is not ripe for decision. Plaintiff explains that it filed the instant motion despite

1

the present stay so as to avoid waiving its right to a stay pending resolution of the new ITC

2

action. Yet plaintiff admits that its request may prove to be moot because “it is presently

3

unknown whether the reexaminations of the Patents-in-Suit will terminate before or after the

4

Enforcement Proceeding” (Br. 1).

pending resolution of the new ITC action, but finds that the issue need not be decided at this time

7

due to the present stay. Assuming a stay pending resolution of the new ITC action is merited, a

8

new stay entered upon expiration of the present stay would satisfy the statutory requirement that a

9

district court “shall stay, until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in

10

the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding

11
For the Northern District of California

This order acknowledges that plaintiff has reserved its right to request a stay of this action

6

United States District Court

5

before the Commission.” See 28 U.S.C. 1659(a).

12

Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action pending resolution of the new ITC action is DENIED

13

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14

This order need not reach the parties’ arguments concerning whether the new ITC action involves

15

the same issues as this action.

to renewing the request within thirty days after the present stay is lifted.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: October 18, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2