Tierravision, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER granting 26 Defendant's Motion to Stay proceedings pending Inter Partes reexamination of U.S. patent no. RE41,983. Upon issuance of a final action in the reexamination proceeding, the parties shall request that the stay be lifted so this case may proceed. The parties shall include a copy of the PTO's final action with that request. The Clerk of Court shall administratively close this case. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 2/21/12.(lao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIERRAVISION, INC.,

12

CASE NO. 11cv2170 DMS(BGS)
Plaintiff,

vs.

13

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING
INTER PARTES
REEXAMINATION OF U.S.
PATENT NO. RE41,983

14
15

GOOGLE, INC.,

16

Defendant.

[Docket No. 26]

17
18

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Google Inc.’s motion to stay proceedings

19

pending inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. RE41,983 (“the ‘983 Patent”). Plaintiff filed an

20

opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants

21

Defendant’s motion.

22

I.

23

BACKGROUND

24

This case arises out of Defendant’s alleged infringement of the ‘983 Patent. Specifically,

25

Plaintiff alleges Defendant is infringing the ’983 Patent through the use of its Google Maps Mobile

26

application.

27

Plaintiff filed its original complaint against Defendant on March 30, 2011. That Complaint

28

alleged three claims for infringement, each of the ‘983 Patent but by different defendants, namely
-1-

11cv2170

1

Google, Microsoft and Research in Motion. Each of those defendants moved to sever the claims against

2

it. The Court granted those motions on September 16, 2011, prompting the filing of the present

3

Complaint against Google only.

4

On November 2, 2011, Defendant Google filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the

5

‘983 Patent, asking the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to invalidate the claims asserted in this

6

case. After filing that request, Defendant filed the present motion. Since the motion was filed, the PTO

7

has granted Defendant’s request for reexamination, and rejected the claims of the ‘983 Patent that are

8

at issue in this case.

9

II.

10

DISCUSSION

11

“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the

12

authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d

13

1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). District courts in the Ninth Circuit consider three

14

factors in determining whether to order a stay pending reexamination of a patent. Those factors are:

15

“(1) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; (2) whether discovery is

16

complete and whether a trial date has been set; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present

17

a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Upsher-Smith

18

Labs., Inc., 486 F.Supp.2d 990, 993-94 (D. Ariz. 2007) (citing In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC,

19

385 F.Supp.2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005)).

20

A.

Simplification of Issues and Trial

21

Here, Defendant goes through all of the possible outcomes of the reexamination, and argues that

22

under any scenario, a stay of this litigation will simplify the issues and trial of this case. Specifically,

23

if the PTO rejects the asserted claims, this case will be over. If the PTO amends the claims, the original

24

claims will no longer be at issue. Finally, if the PTO confirms the claims, that will narrow the

25

references available to Defendant in this case. Confirmation of the claims will also provide additional

26

prosecution history for use in this case. Plaintiff argues a stay will not simplify the issues in this case.

27
28
-2-

11cv2170

1

Although there is a chance the patent claims will emerge from the reexamination process

2

unchanged, the statistics indicate that is unlikely. What is likely is the claims will be either amended

3

or canceled, and if that is the case, a stay will simplify the issues and trial of this case. Cancellation of

4

the claims will result in the ultimate simplification of this case: It will be dismissed. Amendment of the

5

claims will also simplify the issues in numerous ways. Most importantly, it will set the groundwork for

6

the case. With the claims in reexamination, the parties are litigating this case on a bed of shifting sand.

7

The sole basis for the case, the patent claims, are, at this time, uncertain. Staying the case will allow

8

the ground to settle, and may avoid unnecessary and duplicative work. Furthermore, staying the case

9

pending reexamination will allow the parties to complete the prosecution history, which will inform the

10

parties’ and the Court’s constructions of the asserted claims. Under these circumstances, this factor

11

weighs in favor of a stay.

12

B.

Status of the Case

13

The next factor looks to the status of the case. This case is in the midst of discovery, and

14

opening Markman briefs are due in the coming days. The parties have exchanged their preliminary

15

infringement and invalidity contentions, and their proposed claim constructions and extrinsic evidence.

16

They have also filed their Joint Claim Construction Chart, Worksheet and Hearing Statement.

17

Defendant argues this is the perfect time to stay the case because full Markman briefing and additional

18

discovery and trial preparation has yet to occur, while Plaintiff asserts a stay should not be imposed

19

because of all the work the parties have put into the case thus far.

20

Clearly, this case is not in its infancy. The parties have already put forth a great deal of time and

21

effort by completing their preliminary infringement and invalidity contentions and discovery related to

22

claim construction. However, there is much work yet to do in the case, including claim construction

23

briefing and argument, both of which are rapidly approaching. Once claim construction is complete,

24

there would no doubt be a series of summary judgment motions, which will also require a tremendous

25

amount of time and effort. Thus, although the case has progressed past the initial stages, it is not so

26

advanced that a stay is inappropriate. Rather, considering the general time line of patent litigation, there

27

is more work ahead of the parties and the Court than behind the parties and the Court. Thus, this factor

28

weighs in favor of a stay.
-3-

11cv2170

1

///

2

///

3

C.

Prejudice to Plaintiff

4

The last factor for the Court’s consideration is “whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present

5

a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Medicis, 486 F.Supp.2d at 993-94 (citing In re

6

Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, 385 F.Supp.2d at 1023). Here, Defendant argues Plaintiff will not

7

suffer any prejudice if a stay is issued. Defendant acknowledges the case will be delayed if a stay is

8

issued, but asserts that delay alone does not demonstrate prejudice. Defendant also asserts Plaintiff will

9

not be prejudiced by a stay because it is not a competitor of Defendant, and Plaintiff no longer practices

10

the patented invention.

11

Plaintiff does not dispute that it is not a competitor of Defendant, or that it no longer practices

12

the patented invention. Plaintiff also does not dispute that delay alone is insufficient to demonstrate

13

prejudice. However, it does argue the risk of prejudice increases with the length of the delay. Plaintiff

14

asserts the delay in this case is likely to be great, perhaps up to five years, given the time required to

15

complete the reexamination process and the likelihood of appeals. It is this lengthy delay that serves

16

as the basis for Plaintiff’s argument of prejudice.1

17

To be sure, the reexamination process takes time, and if either party were to pursue appeals, that

18

would extend the delay in litigating this case. However, “delay inherent in the reexamination process

19

does not constitute undue prejudice[.]” AT&T Intellectual Property I v. Tivo, Inc., 774 F.Supp.2d 1049,

20

1054 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Especially where Plaintiff does not practice the patented invention, and is not

21

a competitor of Defendant, the mere fact and the length of any delay in this case does not demonstrate

22

prejudice sufficient to deny Defendant’s request for a stay.

23

III.

24

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

25

Considering the factors discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay this

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also asserts Defendant delayed its request for reexamination of the ‘983 Patent, and
Defendant is abusing the reexamination process by requesting reexamination of other patents that it
is alleged to infringe. The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant delayed its request for
reexamination of the patent in suit, and declines to address Defendant’s conduct in other cases.
-4-

11cv2170

1

///

2

///

3

case pending the reexamination proceedings. Upon issuance of a final action in the reexamination

4

proceeding, the parties shall request that the stay be lifted so this case may proceed. The parties shall

5

include a copy of the PTO’s final action with that request. The Clerk of Court shall administratively

6

close this case.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 21, 2012

9
10

HON. DANA M. SABRAW
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

11cv2170