Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02383/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

wo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hotwire Development, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Logitech International S.A., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-02383-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Case Pending Re-examination of U.S.

Patent 6,527,241, which will be granted in part.

The Court has the “inherent power to stay an action pending conclusion of [patent

office] examination proceedings.” Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir.

1988). Courts often consider the following factors when deciding whether to impose such

a stay: “(1) the state of the litigation, i.e., whether discovery is almost complete and whether

a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay would cause undue prejudice or present a clear

disadvantage to the non-moving party; (3) whether a stay would simplify the issues in

question and trial of the case.” In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022,

1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005). A simple weighing of these factors is not dispositive, however, as

a court must examine the totality of the circumstances. Broad. Innovation, LLC v. Charter

Commc’n, Inc., 2006 WL 1897165, at *4 (D. Colo.).

Case 2:09-cv-02383-ROS Document 50 Filed 09/03/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

In this case, the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of granting a stay. The

case is still in its early stages, with discovery only recently having begun. Defendants did not

move for a stay at an unduly late stage of the proceedings. A stay could potentially avoid an

enormous duplication of effort and judicial resources. In these circumstances, a stay is

appropriate. Depending on other circumstances, however, a lengthy stay until the patent reexamination is finished may prove unnecessary. For this reason, the Court will begin by

imposing a six-month stay. At the end of six months, the parties shall appear to discuss the

status of the case and whether a continued stay is warranted. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Stay (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART. This case

is stayed for six months. On March 4, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., the parties shall appear for a

status hearing. The parties shall file a status report no later than five days before the hearing.

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2010.

 

Case 2:09-cv-02383-ROS Document 50 Filed 09/03/10 Page 2 of 2