Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01427/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01427-26/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXONHIT THERAPEUTICS S.A.,

a French societe anonyme, and

EXONHIT THERAPEUTICS, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JIVAN BIOLOGICS, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-01427 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO STAY

The Court has received the parties’ prolonged submissions regarding plaintiff’s renewed

motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,881,571. The decision to

stay a case pending resolution of a reexamination at the USPTO is within the discretion of a

district court. See Viskase Corp. v. American National Can Vo., 261 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir.

2001). It has been the undersigned’s normal practice to deny such motions. This case,

however, presents extraordinary circumstances.

Defendant Jivan Bioligics, Inc., is a start-up company with two full-time employees. 

According to Jivan’s estimates, the maximum potential recoverable damages in this case is

$23,005 (with prejudgment interest). Although this damage figure may be contested, it does

tend to shed light on the magnitude of a finding of infringement. During claim construction

briefing in January 2008, Jivan indicated that it no longer had funds to continue this litigation

and that it wished to stipulate to plaintiff’s proposed constructions. At the claim construction

Case 3:07-cv-01427-WHA Document 143 Filed 06/09/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

hearing, Jivan’s counsel further stated that it was no longer being paid for its services and that

Jivan wished to stipulate to infringement. Counsel was warned that it had a duty to continue its

representation in good faith despite not receiving fees. The Court also informed counsel that

any motion to withdraw as counsel would be disfavored. Following the claim construction

hearing, Jivan filed a stipulation of infringement with respect to a certain portion of its products. 

Trial was then set for June 2008, but due to a scheduling conflict was later moved to September

2008. The parties continued settlement discussions in front of Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero

and a settlement in principle was reached on February 5, 2008. The parties, however, were

unable to finalize the terms of the settlement in principle in writing.

Shortly thereafter, Jivan filed its reexamination application. Plaintiff then filed a motion

for summary judgment and after Jivan’s application for reexamination was accepted, the current

motion to stay was filed. Jivan has since informed the Court that it no longer sells any

infringing products in the United States. While plaintiff does point out that Jivan could again

begin selling infringement sales, they have not presented any evidence to refute Jivan’s

assertion that it currently does not infringe in the United States. Due to lack of funds, Jivan has

also been unable to hire an expert to support its non-infringement and invalidity contentions.

In light of this case’s unusual posture, defendant’s motion to stay is GRANTED. 

Although trial is set to begin in four months and fact discovery has closed, it seems as if this

case would be more efficiently resolved if a stay were entered. The parties should file a status

report on OCTOBER 15, 2008, updating the Court as to the status of the reexamination

proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01427-WHA Document 143 Filed 06/09/08 Page 2 of 2