Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05021/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05021-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-05021

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 1/26/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SANDISK CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STMICROELECTRONICS et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-05021

ORDER1(1) GRANTING MOTION

TO SHORTEN TIME, AND (2)

GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS

[Docket Nos. 12 and 15]

On December 6, 2005, Plaintiff SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”) filed its complaint in

the instant action against Defendants STMicroelectronics (“ST”), a Delaware corporation,

STMicroelectronics NV (“ST NV”), a Dutch corporation, and Does I to X, alleging that

Defendants are infringing U.S. Patent Number 5,991,517 (“the ‘517 patent”). On January 10,

2006, SanDisk filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, with

the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). In that complaint, SanDisk alleges

that ST and ST NV—identified by SanDisk both as “proposed Respondents” and as

Case 4:05-cv-05021-SBA Document 27 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Case No. C 05-05021

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

“Respondents”—violations of Section 337 with respect to three patents, including the ‘517

patent. Declaration of Russell L. Johnson in Support of Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s

Motion to Stay ¶ 5 and Ex. 1. On January 19, 2006, ST filed a motion to stay proceedings,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659. On the same date, ST filed a motion to shorten time for

determination of its motion to stay proceedings, arguing that determination of the motion should

be expedited because, without the stay, Defendants must file an answer by January 30, 2006. 

SanDisk opposes both motions. The Court has read all moving and responding papers and has

considered them without oral argument.

I. DISCUSSION

The Court will grant ST’s motion to shorten time. The motion to stay proceedings has

been fully briefed, the Court has considered the arguments of both parties, and the deadline for

ST to file an answer is quickly approaching. Thus, it is in the interests of both judicial and

litigation efficiency both to grant the motion to shorten time and to decide without further delay

the merits of the motion to stay proceedings.

The parties disagree as to whether a stay is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659. 

The statute provides as follows: 

In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding before the

United States International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a respondent in the

proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the

determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action

with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding

before the Commission, but only if such request is made within—(1) 30 days after

the party is named as a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, or

(2) 30 days after the district court action is filed, whichever is later.

28 U.S.C. § 1659(a).

SanDisk argues that a stay pursuant to § 1659 should not be granted because ST is

presently identified merely as a “proposed respondent,” not as a “respondent.” SanDisk also

argues that because the ITC will conduct an informal investigation before it determines whether

it will institute an investigation, it is not clear that ITC proceedings involving ST will necessarily

Case 4:05-cv-05021-SBA Document 27 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Case No. C 05-05021

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

commence. In response, ST argues that § 1659 requires only that proceedings have been

instituted, not that an investigation has been instituted, and that the filing of the complaint

constitutes the initiation of proceedings. ST argues also that there is no material difference

between a “proposed respondent” and a “respondent” for the purposes of granting a stay pursuant

to § 1659, unless one accepts the argument that the proceeding does not begin until an

investigation is instituted.

This Court need not decide when a proceeding begins or whether a proposed respondent

is equivalent to a respondent for the purposes of § 1659, because in its discretion it concludes

that a stay is appropriate pursuant to its inherent authority to stay proceedings. See, e.g., Rohan

ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). The power to stay proceedings is

incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Landis v. N. Am.

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). SanDisk argues that “a stay would unfairly delay SanDisk’s

rights in this proceeding.” However, SanDisk itself notes that the ITC usually “determine[s]

whether the complaint is properly filed and whether an investigation should be instituted within

30 days after the complaint is filed.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.10(a)(1). Thus, the parties are likely to

know whether an investigation will be instituted by February 9, 2006. At that time, if an

investigation is not instituted, either party may move to lift the stay. Moreover, as ST argues,

“practically every complaint filed results in the institution of an investigation within the 30-day

preinstitution time period.” Donald Knox Duvall et al., Unfair Competition and the ITC at 73

(Philip J. McCabe et al. eds., 2005), attached as Exhibit 5 to Supplemental Declaration of Russell

L. Johnson in Support of Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s Motion to Stay. Accordingly, the

Court concludes that it is unlikely that any delay would result from granting ST’s motion to stay,

and, even if an investigation is not instituted, only a relatively short delay is likely to result. In

contrast, the time and expense that ST would incur in filing an answer to the complaint if a stay

is not granted are not insignificant.

Case 4:05-cv-05021-SBA Document 27 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Case No. C 05-05021

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

II. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to shorten

time is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, a stay of the

instant action is GRANTED.

DATED: January 26, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05021-SBA Document 27 Filed 01/26/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 05-05021

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Julie M. Holloway jholloway@wsgr.com

Russell L. Johnson rljohnson@sidley.com, sheila.brown@sidley.com

Michael A. Ladra mladra@wsgr.com

Matthew Laurence McCarthy MLMcCarthy@sidley.com, jdizon@sidley.com

James C. Yoon jyoon@wsgr.com, abaranski@wsgr.com;

nfurino@wsgr.com 

Case 4:05-cv-05021-SBA Document 27 Filed 01/26/06 Page 5 of 5