Straight Path IP Group Inc v. Apple Inc

Filing 27

ORDER RE PARTIAL STAY AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Hon. William Alsup re 26 Motion for Leave to File in case 3:14-cv-04302-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:14-cv-04302-WHA, 3:14-cv-04309-WHA, 3:14-cv-04312-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.
APPLE INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-04302 WHA
No. C 14-04309 WHA
No. C 14-04312 WHA

Defendant.
/

12
13

STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,

14

ORDER RE PARTIAL STAY AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,

15
16

v.
AVAYA INC.,
Defendant.

17

/

18

STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

22

Defendant.
/

23
24

This order will be filed in all three above-captioned actions wherein plaintiff

25

Straight Path IP Group, Inc. has moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of an order

26

denying without prejudice a complete stay. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is

27

DENIED.

28

1

No accused defendant herein has petitioned for inter partes review of any of the asserted

2

patents and no accused defendant has agreed to be bound by the outcome of any inter partes

3

review proceeding filed by strangers.

4

Although one inter partes review proceeding has been requested by a stranger to this

5

litigation (namely, Sipnet EU S.R.O.) as to one of the asserted patents herein and that proceeding

6

is now on appeal, no inter partes review proceedings have been instituted as to the other four

7

asserted patents. Indeed, no petition to institute an inter partes review proceeding has been filed

8

by anyone for U.S. Patent No. 7,149,208 asserted against defendant Apple Inc. Thus, under the

9

common law factors for a stay, it has not been shown that a complete stay would simplify the
issues in question. Although this order hereby STAYS the portion of the case as to the patent now

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

on appeal (U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704), progress can be accomplished as to the remainder.

12

Straight Path’s reliance on Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., No. 14-1468,

13

2014 WL 6480522, at *3, 7 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2014), is misplaced because that decision, as

14

Straight Path concedes, involved covered business method review under Section 18(b) of the

15

AIA, “which do[es] not apply here” (Br. 2).

16

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

17

The January 8 hearing date is hereby VACATED. The December 18 initial case management

18

conference remains on calendar. This is all without prejudice to a proper motion promptly filed if

19

circumstances change.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: November 26, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2