Simonian v. Monster Cable Products, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER Denying 84 Request for Stay Pending a Final Determination Regarding the Enactment of the America Invents Act of 2011. Signed by Judge Koh on 7/14/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

THOMAS A. SIMONIAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-05544-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
STAY CASE

16

On July 7, 2011, the parties submitted a stipulation in which they requested that the Court

17

stay this action pending a final determination regarding the enactment of the America Invents Act

18

of 2011. The parties agree that, if enacted, the America Invents Act would deprive Plaintiff of

19

standing to bring the instant false patent marking action. The parties represent that the Senate

20

passed a version of the Act on March 8, 2011, and the House passed a different version of the Act

21

on June 23, 2011. However, the parties do not state that Congress is scheduled to vote on a

22

reconciled bill in the near future, nor do they provide any other indication that the status of the Act

23

will be resolved within a short, definite timeframe. It thus appears that the status of the Act might

24

not be resolved until the end of 2012, when the current congressional session ends. Moreover,

25

there is a possibility that the Act may never be enacted into law or that the enacted version of the

26

Act may not deprive Plaintiff of standing. The Court is not inclined to grant a stay of such

27

indefinite and potentially lengthy duration and uncertain outcome. Accordingly, the parties’

28

request for a stay is DENIED. If the parties wish to conserve resources pending congressional
1
Case No.: 10-CV-05544-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY CASE

1

action, they may stipulate to dismiss the case without prejudice, with a tolling agreement, if

2

warranted, to preserve Plaintiff’s claims in the event that the bill does not become law.

3
4

Finally, given the timing of the parties’ stipulated request, the Court will modify the
schedule for briefing Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as follows:

5

(1) Plaintiff’s response is due July 21, 2011;

6

(2) Defendant’s reply is due July 28, 2011;

7

(3) The motion will be heard on September 22, 2011, as scheduled.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: July 14, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 10-CV-05544-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY CASE