Via Vadis, LLC et al v. Netgear, Inc.

Filing 42

STIPULATION AND ORDER For Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/2/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015)

1 Andrew G. DiNovo. PHV Pending
2
3
4
5

Victor G. Hardy. PHV Pending
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
DINOVO PRICE ELLLWANGER & HARDY
7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
Austin, Texas 78731
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 512.539.2627

Ryan R. Smith, CSB No. 229323
[e-mail]
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.493.6811
Attorneys for Defendant
NETGEAR INC.

6 William Paul Schuck, CSB No. 203717
[e-mail]

7 BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800

8 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]

9 Facsimile: 415.956.1152
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

VIA VADIS, LLC and AC

11 TECHNOLOGIES, S.A.
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15

VIA VADIS, LLC, et al.,

16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
v.
NETGEAR INC.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-03573-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER FOR STAY PENDING INTER
PARTES REVIEW
Honorable Richard Seeborg

Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
STAY PENDING IPR
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-03573-RS

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Via Vadis, LLC and AC Technologies, S.A. (collectively,

2 “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant NETGEAR, Inc. (“NETGEAR”) infringes various claims of
3 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,656,125; 7,904,680; and RE 40,521 (collectively, “patents-in-suit”). On
4 August 25, 2015, Amazon.com, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, defendants in cases currently
5 pending in the Western District of Texas, filed four Inter Partes Review Petitions with the U.S.
6 Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”), having case numbers IPR2015-1802, IPR2015-1803,
7 IPR2015-1804, and IPR2015-1805 (collectively, “IPRs”), alleging that all claims of the patents-in8 suit are invalid.
9

WHEREAS, the Parties anticipate expending significant resources on this litigation,

10 including discovery, claim construction, and potentially trial, during the pendency of the IPRs;
11

WHEREAS, NETGEAR has agreed to be estopped from alleging invalidity on the grounds

12 actually raised in the IPRs, upon which the PTAB issues a final written decision, which become
13 non-appealable;
14

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that resolution of the pending IPRs will streamline this

15 litigation and may assist in the Parties’ efforts to reach a settlement agreement. For example, the
16 IPRs could impact the intrinsic record of the patents-in-suit, which could, in turn, impact claim
17 construction issues. The IPRs could also result in all the claims of the patents-in-suit being
18 invalidated. A stay would, therefore, result in substantial saving for the Parties and would
19 conserve judicial resources;
20

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Parties, through their respective

21 counsel, that the Court should vacate all deadlines in the above-captioned matter and enter a stay
22 of all proceedings in this matter pursuant to the agreement of the Parties described herein pending
23 the PTAB’s final non-appealable decision on the IPRs. Within thirty-days of the PTAB’s decision
24 to institute the IPRs, the Parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court. To the extent that
25 the PTAB institutes any of the IPRs, the parties shall submit an additional joint status report to the
26 Court within thirty-days of issuance of the PTAB’s final decision on the IPRs, once such decision
27 becomes non-appealable.
28

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
STAY PENDING IPR
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-03573-RS

-1-

1 Dated: October 30, 2015

BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER

2

By:

3

/s/ William Paul Schuck
William Paul Schuck

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Via Vadis, LLC and AC Technologies, S.A.

4
5

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

6

By:

/s/ Ryan R. Smith
Ryan R. Smith

7

Attorneys for Defendant
NETGEAR INC.

8
9
10

ORDER

11

12 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14 DATED: 11/2/15

____________________________
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
STAY PENDING IPR
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-03573-RS

-2-