Palomar Technologies, Inc. v. MRSI Systems, LLC

Filing 41

ORDER Granting Motion to Lift Stay re 38 . The parties shall contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Karen C. Crawford for the purpose of setting a Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/16/2017. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PALOMAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No.: 15-CV-1484 JLS (KSC)

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
LIFT STAY

v.
MRSI SYSTEMS, LLC,

(ECF No. 38)
Defendant.

15
16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Palomar Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for

18

Relief from the Court’s June 6, 2016 Order, to Lift the Stay of this Action and to set a Case

19

Management Conference. (“Lift Mot.,” ECF No. 38-1.)

20

On June 6, 2016, the Court issued an Order staying this patent infringement case

21

pending resolution of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) filed by Defendant on October 13,

22

2015. (Id. at 2.) On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)

23

issued a Final Written Decision affirming forty-seven out of forty-eight of the ’327 patent’s

24

claims as valid over Defendant’s arguments. (Id. (citing Ex. A).) Defendant did not seek

25

review or appeal of the USPTO’s decision, and thus this decision became final on May 31,

26

2017. (Id.)

27

The Court’s June 6, 2016 Order provides that the stay in this case will not be lifted

28

until the issuance of the Certificate informing the Court of the USPTO’s decision. (Id.
1
15-CV-1484 JLS (KSC)

1

(citing ECF No. 36, at 12–13).) However, Plaintiff notes that the IPR proceeding and any

2

potential appeal have concluded at this point, save the purely administrative task of issuing

3

the IPR Certificate. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks to lift the stay at this point, before issuance

4

of the IPR Certificate, and to set a Case Management Conference. (Id. at 5.) Notably,

5

Defendant MRSI Systems, LLC has filed a notice of non-opposition, and likewise seeks to

6

lift the stay in this case. (ECF No. 40, at 2.) Defendant also notes that it has separately

7

moved to dismiss this case or transfer this action in light of the Supreme Court’s recent

8

decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017).

9

(Id. (citing ECF No. 39).)

10

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay (ECF

11

No. 38). Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay of litigation in this case. The parties

12

SHALL contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Karen C. Crawford for the purpose of

13

setting a Case Management Conference.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 16, 2017

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
15-CV-1484 JLS (KSC)