Boundary Solutions, Inc. v. Corelogic, Inc.

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 52 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014)

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

BOUNDARIES SOLUTIONS INC.,

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

CORELOGIC, INC.,

16

Defendant.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY
(Re: Docket No. 52)

A modern patent case would not be a modern patent case without a motion to stay pending

19

review proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office. And for good reason. With the

20

America Invents Act, Congress has made it clear that it wants the PTO playing a more significant,

21

if dominant, role in evaluating the validity of patents in litigation. Not only must the PTO play this

22

role, it must do so on a schedule that Congress set. 1 And so when the patents before a court are at

23

the same time the subject of proceedings before the PTO, it makes sense that courts generally defer

24

when the PTO has decided to step in.

25
26

But what if the PTO has not yet decided whether to step in? That is what the court
confronts in the present case. On November 3, 2014, Defendant CoreLogic, Inc. filed five petitions

27
1

28

See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
1

Case No.: 14-00761-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

1

for inter partes review directed against every asserted claim identified in Plaintiff Boundary

2

Solutions Inc.’s infringement contentions. 2 The petitions raise numerous invalidity grounds based

3

on multiple prior art publications that each disclose multi-jurisdiction parcel mapping applications

4

like the systems and methods claimed in the patents-in-suit. CoreLogic also informs the court that

5

“in the coming months” it intends to file additional petitions under the PTO’s Transitional Program

6

for Covered Business Method (CBM) patents. Critically, as yet, the PTO has not decided whether

7

any IPR or CBM review will go forward.

8
9

In determining whether to grant a stay pending PTO review, courts consider a variety of
factors, including (1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay

11

would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party. 3 And so

12

even though no decision on any petition filed (and certainly any petition not yet filed) has been

13

made, a case could be made that, on balance, a stay still makes sense. This is especially true when

14

discovery has yet to get going in earnest, no preliminary injunction has been filed and a trial date is

15

still many months away. But in the period before the PTO has yet to make any decision, the court

16

is hard-pressed to say that a stay will simplify any issue. While appreciating the statistical rate at

17

which petitions have been granted to date, this court is unwilling to assume the PTO and its

18

Administrative Law Judges are nothing more than well-educated, well-trained rubber stamps. And

19

where, as here, the patent owner has proffered evidence that it competes 4—however poorly—

20

against the accused infringer, there is real prejudice from delay that might be completely

21

unnecessary. 5

22
2

23

See Docket No. 52-5-52-6.

3

24
25

Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006); accord Pi-Net
Int’l, Inc. v. Focus Bus. Bank, Case No. 12-cv-04958, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118723, at *11 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 16, 2013).

4

26
5

27
28

See Docket No. 58-5 at ¶¶ 5-8.

See ImageVision.Net, Inc. v. Internet Payment Exch., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00054, 2013 WL
663535, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2013) (“It is well established that [c]ourts are generally reluctant to
stay proceedings where the parties are direct competitors.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 1743854 (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2013);
2
Case No.: 14-00761-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY