CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L. v. APPLE INC., 15-cv-05007-RS. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160607980
Filed: Jun. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Plaintiff moves to stay this litigation with respect to four of the five patents in suit, in light of recently-instituted inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In response, defendant Apple, Inc. notes that it ordinarily advocates staying litigation pending the resolution of parallel IPR proceedings. Apple opposes the requ
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Plaintiff moves to stay this litigation with respect to four of the five patents in suit, in light of recently-instituted inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In response, defendant Apple, Inc. notes that it ordinarily advocates staying litigation pending the resolution of parallel IPR proceedings. Apple opposes the reque..
More
ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves to stay this litigation with respect to four of the five patents in suit, in light of recently-instituted inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In response, defendant Apple, Inc. notes that it ordinarily advocates staying litigation pending the resolution of parallel IPR proceedings. Apple opposes the requested stay here, however, on grounds that it would not serve judicial efficiency and would result in prejudice to proceed with litigation of one of the five patents in suit, while staying the balance of the action. Although Apple suggests that the stay motion be denied outright, it does not argue that a stay of the entire action would raise similar efficiency and prejudice concerns, or would otherwise be improper.
Apple's contentions regarding the inadvisability of a partial stay appear to have merit. Accordingly, no later than June 10, 2016, plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, setting out whether it is amenable to a stay of the entire action, and, if not, any reasons it believes such a stay should not be imposed. The motion for a stay will then be submitted without oral argument. The hearing previously set for June 8, 2016 is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
