Convergence Technologies (USA), LLC v. Microloops Corporation et al

Filing 144

ORDER granting 119 Motion to Stay. This case STAYED in its entirety pending final exhaustion of the currently-pending inter parties reexamination proceeding, including any appeals. The claim construction hearing scheduled for 5/3/2012 is VACATED . The Clerk shall administratively close this case.The parties shall submit a joint status report apprising the court of the status of the reexamination proceedings on 10/1/2012 and every sixth months thereafter.The parties shall also provide notice to the court within one week of final exhaustion of the pending reexamination proceeding, including appeals. In the notice, the parties shall request that this matter be reopened and that a case management conference be scheduled.Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/12/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD

CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES
(USA), LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY

12

Plaintiff(s),
v.

13
[Docket Item No. 119]

MICROLOOPS CORPORATION, et. al.,
14
15

Defendant(s).
/

16
17

In this patent infringement action, Defendants Microloops Corporation, Hewlett-Packard

18

Company, and Dynatron Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) presently move the court for an

19

order staying this case in favor of a second inter parties reexamination of the patent in suit. See

20

Docket Item No. 119. Plaintiff Convergence Technologies (USA), LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the

21

request. Having reviewed the moving, opposing and reply papers filed by the parties, the court has

22

determined that Defendants’ motion to stay should be granted for the reasons indicated below.

23
24

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff owns U.S. Patent No. 7,422,053 (the “‘053 patent”) entitled “Vapor Augmented

25

Heatsink with Multi-wick Structure,” issued on September 9, 2008. See Compl., Docket Item No. 1,

26

at ¶¶ 16. On November 9, 2009, Plaintiff commenced this litigation - originally in the Eastern

27

District of Virginia - asserting the ‘053 patent against Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts

28

claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20 and 24 of the ‘053 patent. See Decl. of Eric H. Chadwick, at Ex.
1
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

1

C.

2

In February, 2010, Microloops filed its first request with the United States Patent and

3

Trademark Office (“PTO”) for inter parties reexamination of the ‘053 patent. See id., at Ex. D. The

4

PTO granted the reexamination request and, as relevant here, claim 8 was ultimately cancelled as a

5

result. See id., at Ex. F.

6

On September 8, 2011, Microloops filed a second request for inter parties reexamination of

claims 1 through 5, 18, 19, 20 and 24. See id., at Ex. G. The PTO granted reexamination of all

9

claims and issued an initial office action rejecting the remaining claims on or about February 6,

10

2012. See id., at Exs. H, J. Defendants now move to stay this case in favor of the second inter

11
For the Northern District of California

the ‘053 patent, this time directed at the remaining claims asserted by Plaintiff in this litigation -

8

United States District Court

7

parties reexamination.

12

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

13

As in other contexts, whether to grant a stay pending the reexamination of a patent is

14

entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27

15

(Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings,

16

including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.”). A stay is

17

therefore never required but may be “particularly justified where the outcome of the reexamination

18

would be likely to assist the court in determining patent validity and, if the claims were canceled in

19

the reexamination, would eliminate the need to try the infringement issue.” Cygnus Telecomms.

20

Tech., LLC v. United World Telecom, L.C. (In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig.),

21

385 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340,

22

1342 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In addition, the court may ultimately benefit at trial from the expert opinion

23

of the PTO especially when, as here, a review of prior art is necessary. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d

24

852, 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“When the patent is concurrently involved in litigation, an auxiliary

25

function [of the reexamination] is to free the court from any need to consider prior art without the

26

benefit of the PTO’s initial consideration.”).

27
28

Three factors are considered to determine the appropriateness of a stay: (1) whether a stay
would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical advantage to the nonmoving party, (2) whether a
2
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

1

stay will simplify the issues and the ensuing trial, and (3) whether discovery is complete and

2

whether a trial date has been set. Cygnus, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 1022.

3

There is a “liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the

4

outcome of USPTO reexamination or reissuance proceedings.” ASCII Corp. v. STD Entm’t, 844 F.

5

Supp. 1378, 1381 (N.D. Cal. 1994). This is because “Congress instituted the reexamination process

6

to shift the burden or reexamination of patent validity from the courts to the PTO.” Canady v. Erbe

7

Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64, 78 (D.D.C. 2002).

8
9

A.

DISCUSSION

Prejudice or Tactical Disadvantage

The court begins by examining the prejudice or tactical disadvantage to Plaintiff that may

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

III.

result from a stay. Plaintiff articulates prejudice mainly in the form of ensuing delay. Plaintiff also

12

argues that Defendants have implemented a strategy of delay, as demonstrated by Microloops’ two

13

separate requests for reexamination of the same patent in suit. According to Plaintiff, granting the

14

stay request would only sanction Defendant’s “tactical gamesmanship” while at the same time

15

preventing Plaintiff from pursuing its claims through litigation. In addition, Plaintiff contends that

16

Defendants’ alleged infringing sales have already pushed one it its suppliers into bankruptcy.

17

Defendants, for their part, disagree that Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced. In particular,

18

Defendants argue that the availability of monetary damages to Plaintiff is sufficient to redress any

19

existing harm - or any compounded harm - that may result by virtue of a stay of this action.

20

Moreover, Defendants allege that Plaintiff does not actually practice the patented invention. As

21

such, Plaintiff and Defendants are not in direct competition such that Plaintiff is experiencing

22

ongoing loss of profits.

23

For this factor, Defendants have presented the better argument. Whether good or bad, delay

24

is an unavoidable consequence to any stay, and numerous courts have determined that a general

25

claim of delay is not enough on its own to constitute undue prejudice. See, e.g., AT&T Intellectual

26

Prop. I v. TiVo, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2011); see also Tierravision, Inc. v.

27

Google, Inc., No. 11cv2170 DMS(BGS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21463, at *7-8, 2012 WL 559993,

28

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (“[T]he mere fact and the length of any delay in this case does not
3
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

1

demonstrate prejudice sufficient to deny Defendant’s request for a stay.”); see also Telemac Corp. v.

2

Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“[T]he likely length of

3

reexamination, is not, in itself, evidence of undue prejudice . . . .”). This court agrees that delay,

4

although undoubtedly frustrating for Plaintiff, is not unduly prejudicial here.

5

Nor does the court concur with Plaintiff that the two reexaminations initiated by Microloops

6

are definitive evidence of an overall strategy of delay. This is because “parties having protection

7

under the patent statutory framework may not ‘complain of the rights afforded to others by that same

8

statutory framework.’” AT&T, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 1054 (quoting Pegasus Dev. Corp. v. DirecTV,

9

Inc., No. Civ.A. 00–1020–GMS, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8052, at *8, 2003 WL 21105073 (D. Del.
2003)). Thus, just as Plaintiff was entitled to institute this litigation under federal patent law,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendants are entitled to invoke the reexamination process. The litigation and reexamination back-

12

and-forth are just two moving parts of the same machine. When, as here, the PTO determines

13

reexamination is warranted based on prior art, it makes no difference whether the same patent has

14

been subject to a prior reexamination. And since both reexaminations of the ‘053 patent will occur

15

prior to claim construction in this case, gamesmanship is not readily apparent. See Interwoven, Inc.

16

v. Vertical Computer Sys., Inc., No. C 10-04645 RS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30946, at *8, 2012 WL

17

761692 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012).

18

In addition, Plaintiff does not dispute that it is not a direct competitor of Defendant. Profit

19

loss to Plaintiff is therefore not an issue for consideration. See Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.,

20

56 F.3d 1538, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Normally, if the patentee is not selling a product, by

21

definition there can be no lost profits.”). Neither is any loss experienced by separate corporations

22

not parties to this litigation. See Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc., 383 F. 3d 1303,

23

1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

24
25

In short, Plaintiff has not shown that the imposition of a stay would cause undue prejudice or
tactical disadvantage.

26

B.

27

The court now examines whether a stay in favor of reexamination will simplify or streamline

28

Simplification of Issues

this litigation. It is notable that all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this litigation are subject to
4
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

1

reexamination. It is also important to emphasize the statistics relating to inter parties

2

reexaminations. Of those reexaminations initiated prior to September 16, 2011, “44% of all inter

3

partes reexamination proceedings between 1999 and June 30, 2011 resulted in all claims being

4

canceled, 43% changed the claims, and only 13% confirmed all claims.” Pragmatus AV, LLC v.

5

Facebook, Inc., No. 11-CV-02168-EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117147, at *7, 2011 WL 4802958

6

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011). Under these circumstances, it is certainly more likely than not that some

7

change, if not outright cancellation, will occur as to one or more the asserted claims. A

8

determination cancelling or modifying just one of the six claims acts to clarify the issues for

9

litigation.
Even a confirmation by the PTO of all claims is assistive here, although such result is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

unlikely, since “staying the case pending reexamination will allow the parties to complete the

12

prosecution history, which will inform the parties’ and the Court’s constructions of the asserted

13

claims.” Tierravision, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21463, at *4, 2012 WL 559993. Any resulting

14

scenario results in some form of simplification.

15

Plaintiff contends that the court will still need to hear and determine issues of infringement,

16

unenforceability, and validity after reexamination. But this is true only if one of the claims survives

17

reexamination, and even if one does, the possibility remains that it will not emerge unscathed

18

thereby changing the way it will be ultimately be constructed by the court. Moreover, another

19

possibility looms large here: if all of the asserted claims are rejected, this case will presumably be

20

dismissed.

21
22

Because the reexamination may cause significant change to this case and simply the issues,
this factor weighs in favor of a stay.

23

C.

Procedural Posture

24

Finally, the court considers the current status of this case. The parties agree that discovery

25

has been ongoing, but neither argues that discovery is complete. Indeed, such a development would

26

be surprising considering four defendants were recently added to this case in December, 2011. See

27

Second Am. Compl., Docket Item No. 101. In addition, the court has not yet heard claim

28

construction or set a trial date. Although briefing on claim construction is complete based on the
5
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

1

claims in their current form, the possibility of cancellation or modification may require modified or

2

new briefing. That fact, therefore, has only minimal impact on this analysis.

3

Plaintiff points the court to the age of this case - now over two years old - as a reason to

4

deny to the stay. The court has considered that fact. However, despite its age, this case has not

5

reached the “point of no return” for which a stay would inappropriate due to a progressed procedural

6

posture. See, e.g., Interwoven, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30946, at *11-12, 2012 WL 761692

7

(denying motion to stay patent case in favor of reexamination after issuance of a claim construction

8

order).

9

D.

Conclusion

Having examined the relevant factors, it is clear that the current circumstances favor a stay.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Other than the frustration of delay, Plaintiff is not obviously prejudiced. In addition, this particular

12

reexamination will have an important impact on the manner in which this litigation will be handled

13

by the parties and viewed by the court. Moreover, the status of the case is no barrier to abatement.

14

Defendants’ motion will therefore be granted.

15

IV.

16

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED. This case STAYED in

17

its entirety pending final exhaustion of the currently-pending inter parties reexamination proceeding,

18

including any appeals. The claim construction hearing scheduled for May 3, 2012, is VACATED.

19

The Clerk shall administratively close this case.

20
21
22

The parties shall submit a joint status report apprising the court of the status of the
reexamination proceedings on October 1, 2012 and every sixth months thereafter.
The parties shall also provide notice to the court within one week of final exhaustion of the

23

pending reexamination proceeding, including appeals. In the notice, the parties shall request that

24

this matter be reopened and that a case management conference be scheduled.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: April 12, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

28
6
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02051 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY