Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.

Filing 78

MOTION to Stay (DEFENDANT APPLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1659(a)) - filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Moore, David)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NOKIA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 11-15-GMS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully requests
that the Court stay this case with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,558,696 (“the ’696 patent”),
pending a final determination by the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in a
related case the involving the same patent. Plaintiff has indicated it will not oppose this Motion.
On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the ITC under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, asking the ITC to institute an investigation. The ITC complaint alleges, inter
alia, that Apple purportedly infringes the ’696 patent. On April 25, 2011, the ITC instituted an
investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-771) based on Plaintiffs’ complaint and naming Apple as a
respondent. (See Exhibit A attached hereto.) Section 1659(a) provides, in part:
(a) Stay.--In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding
before the United States International Trade Commission under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a
respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay,
until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil
action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the
proceeding before the Commission, but only if such request is made within—
(1) 30 days after the party is named as a respondent in the proceeding
before the Commission, or
(2) 30 days after the district court action is filed,

whichever is later.
28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). Thus, because the ITC investigation involves one of the same patents as
this case, and Apple is both a defendant in this action and named as a respondent in the ITC
investigation, Apple requests pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) that the Court stay proceedings
until the determination of the Commission becomes final.

OF COUNSEL:

POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP

William F. Lee
Dominic E. Massa
Cynthia D. Vreeland
Louis W. Tampros
Christopher R. Noyes
WILMERHALE
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: [phone]

By:

Mark D. Selwyn
Keith L. Slenkovich
WILMERHALE
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: [phone]

/s/ David E. Moore
Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
David E. Moore (#3983)
Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
1313 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

Dated: May 18, 2011
1013406 / 35035

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David E. Moore, hereby certify that on May 18, 2011, the attached document was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification to the
registered attorney(s) of record that the document has been filed and is available for viewing and
downloading.
I hereby certify that on May 18, 2011, the attached document was electronically mailed to
the following person(s)
Jack B. Blumenfeld
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
1201 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899
[e-mail]

/s/ David E. Moore
Richard L. Horwitz
David E. Moore
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
998551/35035 (11-15)