SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net International, Inc.
Filing
80
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 71 Motion to Lift Stay; finding as moot 71 Motion for Leave to File Amended Counterclaim. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SAP AMERICA, INC.,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
Case No. 13-cv-1248-PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LIFT
STAY
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Defendant.
12
13
14
Before the court is the motion of defendant Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam for an order
15
lifting the stay imposed in this case on October 15, 2013. At that time, the parties
16
stipulated to stay the case “until the PTAB has reached a final decision on the PTAB
17
reviews, including any appeals . . . .” While the PTAB reviews were on-going, the District
18
of Delaware issued an order on May 14, 2014, construing claims in the ‘492, ‘500, and
19
‘158 patents, and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity and
20
non-infringement. See Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 42 F.Supp. 2d 579 (D.
21
Del. 2014). The court entered judgment and plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
22
On September 18, 2014, and March 6, 2015, the PTAB issued written decisions
23
finding all challenged claims in the ‘492, ‘500, and ‘158 patents to be unpatentable. Dr.
24
Arunachalam filed appeals of the PTAB decisions and all underlying orders, which were
25
consolidated by the Federal Circuit. On July 21, 2015, the Federal Circuit granted SAP’s
26
request to stay the appeals from the IPRs and CBM reviews pending the disposition of
27
any petition for certiorari that might be filed in the JPMorgan case. The U.S. Supreme
28
Court denied Dr. Arunachalam’s petition for writ of certiorari on January 11, 2016, and
1
2
denied her petition for rehearing on March 7, 2016.
However, to date, the Federal Circuit has issued no further order in the JPMorgan
3
case, and the stays in the appeals of the PTAB decisions have not been lifted.
4
Accordingly, the conditions under which the stay in this case was imposed remain in
5
place, and the motion for an order lifting the stay is DENIED. Because the case remains
6
stayed, defendant and counterclaimant’s motion for leave to file an amended
7
counterclaim is DENIED as moot.
8
9
The date for the hearing on the motion, previously set for April 27, 2016, is
VACATED.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated: April 22, 2016
13
14
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
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?