Supercell Oy v. Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC

Filing 55

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The court ORDERS the parties to show cause no later than Tuesday, June 12, 2018, why the court should not lift the stay in this matter. In addition, the court directs the parties to propose a course of action for resolving the case in the event the court lifts the stay. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SUPERCELL OY,

CASE NO. C15-1119JLR
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
12
13

ROTHSCHILD DIGITAL MEDIA
INNOVATIONS, LLC,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Before the court is Defendant Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC’s

17

(“RDMI”) June 4, 2018, status report. (6/4/18 Rep. (Dkt. # 54).) The court stayed this

18

matter on July 28, 2016, pending inter partes review of the patent at issue by the Patent

19

Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

20

(See 7/28/16 Order (Dkt. # 37) at 13.) On December 13, 2017, the Federal Circuit

21

affirmed the PTAB’s Final Written Decision (2/28/18 Rep. (Dkt. # 49) at 2), and based

22

on the Federal Circuit’s decision, on March 8, 2018, the court ordered the parties to

ORDER - 1

1

propose a recommendation for resolving this matter (3/8/18 Order (Dkt. # 50) at 2). The

2

parties proposed that the court continue the stay pending RDMI’s petition for writ of

3

certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. (Pl. Resp. (Dkt. # 51) at 2; Def. Resp.

4

(Dkt. # 52) at 2.) On March 20, 2018, the court continued the stay until the Supreme

5

Court issued a decision on RDMI’s petition. (See 3/20/18 Order (Dkt. # 53) at 3.)

6

In its June 4, 2018, report, RDMI informs the court that on May 21, 2018, the

7

Supreme Court denied RDMI’s petition. (6/4/18 Rep. at 2.) Accordingly, the court

8

ORDERS the parties to show cause no later than Tuesday, June 12, 2018, why the court

9

should not lift the stay in this matter. In addition, the court directs the parties to propose

10

a course of action for resolving the case in the event the court lifts the stay. If the parties

11

agree, they may file a joint response of no more than five (5) pages. Otherwise, the

12

parties may file separate responses of no more than five (5) pages each.

13

Dated this 5th day of June, 2018.

14
15

A

16

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2