American GNC Corporation v. GoPro, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying Defendant GoPro, Inc.'s 16 Motion to Stay the Proceedings. Defendant GoPro shall answer to the Complaint in accordance with the existing deadline. This Order is without prejudice to Defendant GoPro seeking a stay at a later point. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 7/18/2018. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
AMERICAN GNC CORP.,

11

Case No. 18-cv-00968-BAS-BLM
Plaintiff,

12
13

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANT
GOPRO, INC.’S MOTION TO
STAY THE PROCEEDINGS

v.

14

GOPRO, INC.,
ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, AND
BOSCH SENSORTEC GMBH,

15
16

[ECF No. 16]

Defendants.

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

On May 16, 2018, Plaintiff American GNC Corp. (“AGNC”) filed this patent

20

infringement suit against Defendants GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro”), Robert Bosch GMBH

21

and Bosch Sensortec GMBH (the latter are collectively the “Bosch Defendants”).

22

(ECF No. 1.) Although GoPro was served with the Complaint on May 22, 2018 (ECF

23

No. 7), AGNC has yet to serve the two Germany-based Bosch Defendants in

24

accordance with the Hague Convention. (ECF No. 9.) GoPro requested a forty-five

25

day extension of its deadline to respond to the Complaint, which the Court granted

26

on June 7, 2018. (ECF No. 15.) GoPro now seeks to stay all proceedings in this case

27

and its deadline to respond to the Complaint “because the other two defendants have

28

not been served.” (ECF No. 16.) AGNC opposes. (ECF No. 17.) For the reasons
–1–
18cv968

1

herein, the Court denies GoPro’s motion without prejudice.

2

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

3

A district court has the “power to stay proceedings” as part of its inherent

4

power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time

5

and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

6

248, 254 (1936). In determining whether to stay an action, courts must weigh

7

competing interests that will be affected by the granting of or refusal to grant a stay.

8

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). In determining whether to

9

stay proceedings, a court considers: (1) judicial economy, (2) the moving party’s

10

hardship, and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party. Single Chip Sys. Corp.

11

v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). “The proponent

12

of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681,

13

708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that

14

the stay . . . will work damage to someone else[,]” the party seeking the stay “must

15

make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.”

16

Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

17

III.

DISCUSSION

18

The crux of GoPro’s motion to stay the proceedings centers on the possibility

19

that all Defendants might file a motion to transfer this litigation to another venue at

20

some later point. The Court is not persuaded that this provides a sufficient reason to

21

impose a stay at this time.

22

GoPro contends that imposing a stay now will serve judicial efficiency because

23

without a stay, the Court “may need to consider multiple pleadings and venue-related

24

motions from GoPro and then similar motions from the Bosch Defendants, instead of

25

dealing with all of these motions at once, after the Bosch Defendants have been served

26

and appeared in the case.” (ECF No. 16-1 at 3.) GoPro further contends that it would

27

face hardship by having to proceed alone on a “different track” because the Bosch

28

Defendants “likely possess information relevant to any transfer or other pleading–2–
18cv968

1

related motions” and “possess significantly more information concerning the

2

operation of the accused Bosch sensors.” (ECF No. 16-1 at 3.)1 GoPro does not

3

provide any concrete evidence to support these assertions.

4

Even if GoPro’s contentions might provide a proper basis for a stay of the

5

proceedings at a later point in time, they do not provide a persuasive basis to do so

6

now. Unsubstantiated speculation about the actions of other yet-to-be-served parties

7

is insufficient to impose a stay. Even assuming that GoPro has raised a valid point

8

that judicial efficiency would be served in the event that all Defendants would move

9

to transfer venue at a later point, GoPro fails to persuasively argue why it cannot

10

respond to AGNC’s allegations against it.2 As GoPro acknowledges, AGNC’s

11

allegations against it concern “GoPro’s use of Bosch sensors in GoPro’s products.”

12

(ECF No. 16-1 at 3 (emphasis added).) The Court does not find that the presence of

13

the Bosch Defendants is necessary for GoPro to respond to the Complaint, whether

14

through an answer or a motion to dismiss because (1) any answer turns on GoPro’s

15

own knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding the Complaint’s allegations and (2) any

16

motion to dismiss turns on the sufficiency of AGNC’s allegations and claims.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Although GoPro asserts that it will face harm from being placed on a “different
track,” it fails to show how being required to answer the Complaint now or participate
in any discovery specific to it constitutes harm for which a stay of all proceedings
would be proper. To the extent GoPro would be placed on a “different” trial track by
litigating before the Bosch Defendants have been served, that issue can be addressed
through an appropriate Case Management Order that harmonizes all deadlines in
which the participation of all parties would serve judicial economy. AGNC has
expressly “has agreed that the case schedule should be common to all Defendants.”
(ECF No. 17 at 3.)
1

24
25
26
27
28

2

Requests to alter court deadlines, including deadlines to respond to pleadings,
are subject to a good cause standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court cannot find
that good cause exists to extend the deadline for GoPro to respond to the Complaint,
particularly when (1) the deadline would have no definite point and (2) GoPro has
already received a 45-day extension. GoPro has had ample to prepare an answer or a
motion to dismiss the Complaint with which it was served nearly 2 months ago.
–3–
18cv968

1

Lastly, GoPro argues that a delay in the proceedings alone cannot constitute

2

“undue prejudice” to AGNC. (ECF No. 16-1 at 3.) In making this assertion, GoPro

3

cites authorities which considered the propriety of a stay pending examination of

4

patents-in-suit by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). See Coho

5

Licensing LLC v. Glam Media, No. C 14–01576 JSW, 2014 WL 4681699, at *1 (N.D.

6

Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) (considering stay pending PTO’s decision on whether to grant or

7

deny petitions for inter partes review); Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.,

8

No. 08-cv-543-IEG-LSP, 2009 WL 1391537, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009)

9

(considering stay pending the PTO’s ex parte reexamination of the patents-in-suit).

10

These authorities are inapposite to the posture of the present proceedings because

11

there is no evidence of a PTO examination of any patents-in-suit.

12

In opposition, AGNC identifies delay in the progression of this case as a

13

potential harm it would suffer if the case is stayed. (ECF No. 17 at 3.) The Court

14

does not find this to be a harm sufficient to preclude entry of a stay—in the event a

15

properly supported and more persuasive request is made by GoPro. As GoPro

16

observes, AGNC seeks only money damages as opposed to relief that would be

17

harmed by delay, such as injunctive relief. (ECF No. 16-1 at 3.) Even so, because

18

GoPro has not persuasively argued that a stay is warranted at this time, the Court does

19

not find that the absence of an identifiable harm to AGNC itself would otherwise

20

warrant entry of a stay of all proceedings.

21

IV.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

22

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES GoPro’s motion to stay the

23

proceedings. (ECF No. 16.) GoPro shall answer or otherwise respond to the

24

Complaint in accordance with the existing deadline.

25

prejudice to GoPro seeking a stay of the proceedings at a later point.

26
27

This order is without

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 18, 2018

28
–4–
18cv968