Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-38/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER DENYING MICRON'S 

MOTION TO STAY PENDING EX 

PARTE REEXAMINATION

Re: Dkt. No. 359

Micron’s motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination is scheduled for a hearing on April 

19, 2019. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate 

for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, 

the Court DENIES the motion.

Micron requests that the Court stay this litigation pending an ex parte reexamination of the 

patent-in-suit by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Micron states that it filed 

the request in view of MLC’s statements during the prior reexamination and the relevance of a 

“previously unconsidered” combination of prior art references, Kitamura, Noguchi et al., U.S. 

Patent No. 5,262,984 (“Kitamura”), and Briner et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,629,972 (“Briner”). Micron 

argues that a stay would maximize judicial economy and that the cause of action in this lawsuit will 

be moot if the asserted claims are canceled in the ex parte reexamination. MLC opposes a stay on 

numerous grounds. 

“Courts have 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) (citations omitted). In determining whether to grant a stay 

pending PTO review, courts consider three main factors: (1) whether discovery is complete and 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 388 Filed 04/01/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 non-moving party. Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 

2006); accord Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. Focus Bus. Bank, No. C-12-4958-PSG, 2013 WL 4475940, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2013).

The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and the posture of this case and finds that 

a stay is not warranted. The Court has stayed this case twice already, first in 2015-16 pending 

Micron’s unsuccessful request for inter partes review (“IPR”), and a second time in 2017-18 

pending Micron’s unsuccessful institution of an ex parte reexamination. As MLC notes, Micron 

asserted the Kitamura reference in the IPR and previous ex parte reexamination, and each time the 

PTO and the PTAB have found that the asserted claims are valid. The PTO’s decision in this second 

ex parte reexamination is not binding on this Court, and Micron will not be estopped from asserting 

the same invalidity defenses based on Kitamura at trial. 

The Court previously stayed this case because, inter alia, discovery was in early stages, no 

trial date was set, and, in the last reexamination, Micron was raising the obviousness-type double 

patenting challenge before the PTO. Now, discovery is almost complete, the parties have exchanged 

expert reports, pretrial filings are due April 15, 2019, and trial is set for August 12, 2019. Further, 

the OTDP defense is no longer part of this case. The Court has repeatedly informed the parties that 

the Court will not make any further adjustments to the pretrial and trial schedule. Under all of these

circumstances, the Court finds that a third stay will not promote judicial economy and would be 

prejudicial to MLC, and therefore DENIES Micron’s motion for a stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 388 Filed 04/01/19 Page 2 of 2