Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01799/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01799-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

18-cv-01799-H-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KFX MEDICAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

STRYKER CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-01799-H-WVG

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY PENDING 

INTER PARTES REVIEW 

[Doc. No. 28.]

On April 9, 2019, Defendants Stryker Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. 

doing business as Stryker Orthopaedics filed a motion to stay the action pending inter 

partes review of the patents-in-suit. (Doc. No. 28.) On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff KFx

Medical, LLC filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay. (Doc. No. 34.) On May 

6, 2019, Defendants filed their reply. (Doc. No. 36.) A hearing on the motion to stay is 

currently scheduled for Monday, May 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. The Court, pursuant to its 

discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines this matter is appropriate for resolution 

without oral argument, submits the motion on the parties’ papers, and vacates the hearing. 

For the reasons below, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to stay without prejudice. 

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-01799-H-WVG Document 37 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-01799-H-WVG

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

Background

On August 2, 2018, KFx filed a complaint for patent infringement against Stryker, 

alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,585,311 and 8,951,287. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have induced infringement of the patents-insuit by providing instructions and teachings to the customers of their ReelX STT Knotless 

Anchor and related product for use in a double-row rotator cuff repair procedure. (Id. ¶¶ 

31-44, 48, 58.) On September 27, 2018, Stryker filed an answer to KFx’s complaint and 

counterclaims. (Doc. No. 14.) On February 11, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order 

in the action. (Doc. No. 26.)

On March 20, 2019, Stryker filed at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board a petition for inter partes review of the ’311 patent and a 

petition for inter partes review of the ’287 patent. (Doc. No. 28-2, Handler Decl. Exs. A, 

B.) By the present motion, Stryker moves for a stay of the action pending the PTAB’s 

resolution of Stryker’s pending requests for inter partes review. (Doc. No. 28-1 at 1.) 

Discussion

I. Legal Standards for a Motion to Stay Pending IPR

“Courts have [the] inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, 

including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” 

Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citing Landis v. N. Am. 

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The 

District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control 

its own docket.”). “There is no per se rule that patent cases should be stayed pending 

[review], because such a rule would invite parties to unilaterally derail litigation.” Verinata 

Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. C 12-05501 SI, 2014 WL 121640, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 13, 2014); see Viskase Corp. v. Am. Nat’l Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed.

Cir. 2001) (“The court is not required to stay judicial resolution in view of the 

reexaminations.”). Instead, the decision to grant a stay is within the court’s discretion, 

taking into account the totality of the circumstances. See Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1426-27. 

Case 3:18-cv-01799-H-WVG Document 37 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-01799-H-WVG

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 determining whether to grant a stay pending PTO review, district courts generally 

consider the following three factors: “‘(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a 

trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of 

the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical 

disadvantage to the nonmoving party.’” TAS Energy, Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 

No. 12CV2777-GPC BGS, 2014 WL 794215, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014); accord

Verinata, 2014 WL 121640, at *1; cf. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, § 18(b)(1), 

P.L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 331 (setting out the same factors and adding a fourth to 

determine whether to stay litigation pending PTO review of covered business method 

patents). “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton, 520 

U.S. at 708. 

II. Analysis

After considering all of the relevant factors, the record, and the parties’ arguments, 

the Court declines to stay the action at this stage in the proceedings. Here, Stryker has

merely filed petitions requesting inter parties review with the PTAB. The PTAB has not 

yet acted on the petitions for review, and it likely will not make a decision on the petitions

and whether to actually institute inter partes review for several months. (See Doc. No. 28-

1 at 4-5, 8 (explaining that the PTAB will issue its institution decisions on both petitions 

by September 29, 2019).) In light of this, a stay of the action is not appropriate at this time. 

Indeed, the majority of district courts “have postponed ruling on stay requests or have 

denied stay requests when the PTAB has not yet acted on the petition for review.” Trover 

Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-CV-1047-WCB, 2015 WL 1069179, at *5 

(E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.) (collecting cases); see also DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. 

v. Preciseley Microtechnology Corp., No. 15-CV-01362-BLF, 2015 WL 12859346, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015) (“Until the PTAB makes a decision on whether to grant the IPR 

petition, any argument about whether the IPR process will simplify issues in this litigation 

is highly speculative. . . . [Thus,] [a]bsent unusual circumstances, . . . the filing of an IPR 

request does not by itself simplify the issues in a case.”). Accordingly, the Court denies 

Case 3:18-cv-01799-H-WVG Document 37 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-01799-H-WVG

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

Stryker’s motions to stay.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court denies Stryker’s motion to stay without prejudice 

to Stryker renewing the motion to stay if the PTAB grants the petition(s) and institutes inter 

partes review of the patent(s)-in-suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-01799-H-WVG Document 37 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4