Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Filing 168

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT CISCO'S PENDING MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING IPR PROCEEDINGS. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/3/15. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.,

9
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

No. C-14-3348 EMC
CONSOLIDATED CASES
C-14-3349 EMC
C-14-3350 EMC
C-14-3351 EMC
ORDER REGARDING CISCO’S
PENDING MOTION FOR LITIGATION
STAY PENDING INTER PARTES
REVIEW

15
16
17

On February 12, 2015, Cisco filed a motion to stay this action pending the Patent and

18

Trademark Office’s decision to institute inter partes review (IPR) of one of the patents-in-suit.1

19

Docket No. 161. Cisco also filed a motion to expedite the briefing schedule on its motion to stay.

20

Docket No. 162, which this Court granted. Docket No. 163. Cisco’s reply in support of its motion

21

to stay is currently due this Friday, March 6, and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday, March 12. Id.

22

In Capella’s opposition to Cisco’s motion to stay, Capella states that the non-Cisco

23

defendants have not taken a concrete position on whether the pending cases against them should be

24

stayed pending the resolution of IPR proceedings if the case against Cisco is stayed. Docket No.

25

167. Capella also contends that the non-Cisco defendants have not taken a firm position on

26

Capella’s offer to stipulate to a stay of all of the consolidated proceedings before this Court in

27
28

1

The PTO has since instituted IPR of the other patent-in-suit. See Docket No. 164.

1

exchange for the non-Cisco defendants agreeing to be bound by the outcome of Cisco’s IPR petition,

2

consistent with the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).

3

Non-Cisco defendants are hereby ORDERED to file a notice before noon on Thursday,

4

March 5, 2015, indicating: (1) whether they seek a stay of their own cases pending resolution of

5

Cisco’s IPR; and (2) whether they will agree to be bound by the same estoppel that limits IPR

6

petitioners as set forth by 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) if the Court conditions a stay in this case on such

7

agreement. The notice shall not contain argument and shall not exceed one page in length.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: March 3, 2015

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2