Polaris Innovations Limited v. Dell Inc.
Filing
83
ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 75 Defendants' Motion to Stay. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
DELL INC., et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-7005-PJH
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO STAY
Defendants.
12
13
14
Defendants’ motion to stay this action pending resolution of inter partes review
15
(“IPR”) of five of the six patents-in-suit came on for hearing before this court on June 14,
16
2017. Plaintiff Polaris Innovations Limited appeared by its counsel Matthew D. Powers
17
and Alex H. Chan; defendant NVIDIA Corporation appeared by its counsel David M.
18
Hoffman and Katherine Vidal; and defendant Dell, Inc. appeared by its counsel Brianna L.
19
Kadjo. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the
20
relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion as follows and for the
21
reasons stated at the hearing.
22
The question whether to stay proceedings pending IPR is a matter committed to
23
the district court's discretion. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. ServiceNow, Inc., 2015 WL
24
5935368 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015); see also Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422,
25
1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “Courts in this District examine three factors when determining
26
whether to stay a patent infringement case pending review or reexamination of the
27
patents: (1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2)
28
whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a
1
stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving
2
party.” PersonalWeb Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal.
3
2014) (quotations and citation omitted). Having considered these factors, the court finds
4
that the benefits of a stay outweigh any inherent costs of postponing the litigation.
5
The stay will be in effect until December 2017. The court will conduct a further
6
case management conference (“CMC”) on December 14, 2017. The parties shall file a
7
joint CMC statement on December 7, 2017, in which they shall apprise the court of the
8
status of the decisions by the PTAB with regard to institution of the pending IPRs. The
9
court will revisit the decision regarding the stay at the CMC.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated: June 15, 2017
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?