ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STAY AND DENYING MOTION TO SEAL (Docket No. 514, 515)

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.

On June 16, 2014, the Court granted Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.'s (ATTS) motion for reconsideration of this Court's stay order due to the emergence of new material facts. Docket No. 516. Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (USEI) opposes the motion to reconsider the stay or, if a stay regarding claims against ATTS is granted, requests that ATTS be bound by the infringement and invalidity determinations that will be established with regards to Intervenor Sigma Designs. The Court took this matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11(b). Having considered the papers, the Court GRANTS the motion.

In its January 17, 2013 Order, the Court stayed almost all of USEI's claims against the AT&T Defendants and Zions Bancorporation. Docket No. 408. The Court noted that the "stayed Defendants will continue to be bound by decisions of the Court during the pendency of the stay. If the stayed Defendants wish to be heard on any issue, they may apply to the Court to lift the stay for that purpose." Id. at 7. The only claims that were not stayed were those asserted against the AT&T U-Verse Set-Top Box, which is manufactured and distributed by ATTS. Id. ATTS previously moved for reconsideration of this motion, after Sigma successfully intervened in this case. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, placing great weight on USEI's contention at the time that "resolution of the claims against the Acer Defendants and Intervenors will not dispose of USEI's claims against [ATTS] with regard to at least its U-Verse settop box." Docket No. 465 at 2. The Court noted that even after Sigma intervened, it was "not clear that only the technology of the chip suppliers [such as Sigma] is at issue." Id. at 3.

Since then, USEI has solidified its substantive infringement arguments against Defendants. It is clear from the papers, expert reports, and infringement charts that both sides consider USEI's claims against ATTS to be derivative of the ones against Sigma. Dr. Mitzenmacher, USEI's technical expert, opined that ATTS infringes the claims of the only patent asserted against ATTS because "the Accused AT&T Products integrate Accused Sigma Products that infringe these Claims." Schuster Decl., Ex. A at 3. A review of Dr. Mitzenmacher's expert report reveals that he never describes the ATTS accused products as infringing independently from their integration of the accused Sigma chips. See id. at 27 ¶ 86 ("As I have shown, all of the Sigma Accused Products (and the AT&T Accused Products by integration) meet the required elements of the claims"). Other USEI documents demonstrate that it considers the claims against Sigma and the claims against ATTS to be identical.1 Because the infringement issues are identical, ATTS contends that the principles of efficiency and judicial economy would be well served if the claims against ATTS were stayed, pending resolution of USEI's claims against Sigma. ATTS' Motion at 4 (citing Tegic Commc'ns Corp. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys., 458 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2006). ATTS further argues that it makes sense for Sigma, the manufacturer, to litigate the issues of infringement because it has greater interest and knowledge than the customers. Id. (citing Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 909 F.2d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

The Court agrees that the claims against ATTS should be stayed while the ones against Sigma proceed. ATTS cannot, however, argue now that the infringement theories are identical in order to obtain a stay, and then later challenge that premise if judgment is imposed against Sigma.2 Accordingly, as with the stays previously imposed by the Court, ATTS will be bound by any decisions affecting Sigma while claims against ATTS remain stayed. If ATTS wishes to be heard on any issue, it may apply to the Court to lift the stay for that purpose.

In conjunction with ATTS' motion for reconsideration, it filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibits B and C to the Schuster Declaration because they contain materials designated by USEI as "Highly Confidential — Outside Counsel Eyes Only" under the parties' protective order. USEI did not file a supporting declaration, within four days as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), or at any time. Accordingly, the motion is denied. ATTS shall file unredacted versions of these documents in the public record no later than seven days from the issuance of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.