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)

Download PDF
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

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?