Valencell, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.

Filing 115

ORDER granting 57 Motion to Stay; denying without prejudice 108 Motion to Transfer Case; denying without prejudice 108 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 6/28/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:16-CV-2-D VALENCELL, INC., Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER On December 20, 2016, Fitbit, Inc., ("Fitbit") moved to stay the above-captioned action pending resolution oflnter Partes Review ("IPR") ofU.S. Patent. Nos. 8,923,941, (''the '941 patent"), 8,886,269 (''the '269 patent"), 8,929,965 (''the '965 patent"), and 8,989,830 (''the '830 patent") before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") [D.E. 57] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 58]. On January 11,2017, Valencell, Inc., ("Valencell") responded in opposition [D.E. 60]. On January 25,2017, Fitbit replied [D.E. 65]. For the reasons set forth in Fitbit' s memorandum in support and reply, as well as the PTAB' s institution ofiPR for the patents [D.E. 106], a stay of this action is warranted. Thus, the court GRANTS Fitbit' s motion to stay [D.E. 57]. The action is STAYED pending completion of the IPR. Magistrate Judge Gates retains authority to resolve any pending discovery matters. Fitbit' spending motion to transfer and to amend its answer [D.E.108] is DENIED without prejudice. SO ORDERED. This 2.8 day of June 2017.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?