Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP. et al

Filing 295

Joint MOTION to Stay All Above Actions by FileMaker, Inc., Pervasive Software, Inc., Symantec Corp., Uniloc Singapore Private Limited, Uniloc USA, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Uniloc v. Sureloc Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B - Ltr from Miller to Attys in Uniloc litigation re 216 patent, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Michael)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISK DOCTORS LABS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP., ET AL.,
Defendants.
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ENGRASP, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.,
1
1543956-1

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
:
:
:

Case No. 6:10-cv-373
PATENT CASE

Case No. 6:10-cv-471
PATENT CASE

Case No. 6:10-cv-472
PATENT CASE

Case No. 6:10-cv-591
PATENT CASE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X

Plaintiffs,
v.
BMC SOFTWARE, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOXIT CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants.
SYMANTEC CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs.
v.
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:10-cv-636
PATENT CASE

Case No. 6:10-cv-691
PATENT CASE

Case No. 6:11-cv-33
PATENT CASE

JOINT MOTION TO STAY ALL ABOVE ACTIONS
Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Limited ("Uniloc"), together with all
remaining Defendants ("Defendants," and collectively with Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), move the
Court for the entry of an Order, a copy of which is submitted herewith, staying the abovecaptioned actions, including all discovery (except as discussed in Paragraphs 5 and 6 herein),
pending the resolution of a recently-filed California state court action to determine whether
Uniloc, or another entity, has exclusive rights to the Patent-In-Suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216
("the '216 Patent"). In support of this Motion, the Parties state as follows:

2
1543956-1

1.

On November 3, 2011, Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Corporation Pty. Ltd., and

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California against
Sureloc, Inc., Patrick Rooney, and Does 1-100 (the "California Action"), seeking, inter alia,
declaratory relief that Uniloc USA, and not Sureloc, Inc., is the exclusive licensee of the '216
Patent. (See Exhibit A hereto.)
2.

On November 10, 2011, counsel for Sureloc, Inc. wrote to counsel for Defendants

contending that Sureloc, Inc. has exclusive rights to the '216 Patent under a patent license
agreement with Uniloc Corporation, Pty, Ltd. (See Exhibit B hereto.)
3.

The Parties have agreed that, based on the current proceedings before the Superior

Court of the State of California initiated by Uniloc seeking a declaration of exclusive rights to
enforce the '216 Patent, it would best serve judicial economy and efficiency to stay the
proceedings before this Court pending the outcome of the California Action. The outcome of the
California Action could affect the standing of Uniloc to assert the '216 Patent against Defendants
in the above-captioned actions. The Parties have agreed that it would be most efficient for all
Parties and the Court to stay the present actions while the court in the California Action rules on
ownership and any exclusive rights under the '216 Patent.
4.

In the present above-captioned actions, discovery remains open and post-

Markman dates are yet to be scheduled. As such, the Parties maintain that a stay is reasonable at
this stage in the cases and would not unduly prejudice any Party. (See, e.g., Dkt. 134 from Case
No. 6:10-CV-373 (Uniloc v. Sony et al.), which notes with an asterisk (*) the dates to be set after
the Parties' post-Markman case management conference.)
5. Defendant McAfee does not oppose a stay of Uniloc's cases against the other
Defendants. However, McAfee believes that briefing and consideration of McAfee’s pending

3
1543956-1

Motion to Dismiss ("McAfee's Motion") [Dkt 219 in Case No. 6:10-CV-373 (Uniloc v. Sony et
al.)] should continue as normal, and thus opposes a stay as to McAfee to the extent such a stay
would impact briefing and resolution of McAfee's Motion. With respect to McAfee’s Motion,
Uniloc believes that, at a minimum, it should be permitted to submit its brief(s) opposing
McAfee’s Motion, irrespective of the stay.
6.

Notwithstanding the proposed stay of the above-captioned actions, Uniloc has

agreed to keep all Defendants reasonably apprised of litigation involving the '216 Patent,
including, but not limited to, the California Action and Uniloc's litigation against Microsoft
Corporation. To this end, Uniloc will provide Defendants with electronic copies of all
documents filed in such litigation as they become available.
7.

In view of the foregoing, the Parties jointly move that the Court enter the attached

Order staying this litigation.
Dated: November 18, 2011

Respectfully submitted by,
/s/ Mark A. Flagel
(with permission by Michael E. Jones)
Michael E. Jones
State Bar No. 10929400
Allen F. Gardner
State Bar No. 24043679
POTTER MINTON
A Professional Corporation
110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702)
Tyler, Texas 75702
[phone]
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Mark A. Flagel
Yury Kapgan
Dale Chang
LATHAM &WATKINS LLP
4
1543956-1

355 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Dean G. Dunlavey
LATHAM &WATKINS LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS AND
COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS SYMANTEC
CORPORATION
By: /s/ Charles D. Huston, with permission by
Michael E. Jones
Charles D. Huston
State Bar No. 10328950
Stacy L. Zoern
State Bar No. 24051565
DAFFER MCDANIEL, LLP
700 Lavaca Street, Suite 720
Austin, TX 78701
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PERVASIVE
SOFTWARE INC.
By: /s/ Melissa Richards Smith, with permission by
Michael E. Jones
Melissa Richards Smith
TX Bar No. 24001351
GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P.
303 South Washington Avenue
Marshall, Texas 75670
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
5
1543956-1

Michael A. Jacobs (CA Bar No. 111664)
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Rudy Y. Kim (CA Bar No. 199426)
Christopher F. Jeu (TX Bar No. 24050823)
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant FILEMAKER, INC

/s/ Steven W. Hartsell, with permission by
Michael E. Jones
Edward R. Nelson, III
Texas State Bar No. 00797142
Barry J. Bumgardner
Texas State Bar No. 24041918
Steven W. Hartsell
Texas State Bar No. 24040199
S. Brannon Latimer
Texas State Bar No. 24060137
Jaime K. Olin
Texas State Bar No. 24070363
NELSON BUMGARDNER CASTO, P.C.
3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
T. John Ward, Jr.
Texas State Bar No. 00794818
6
1543956-1

J. Wesley Hill
Texas State Bar No. 24032294
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
111 West Tyler St.
Longview, Texas 75601
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
UNILOC USA, INC. AND
UNILOC SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on November 18, 2011.

/s/ Michael E. Jones

7
1543956-1