Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01248/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01248-4/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

SAP AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-01248-PJH 

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

This action has been stayed since October 15, 2013. On November 1, 2018, the 

court ordered plaintiff SAP America, Inc. and defendant Lakshmi Arunachalam to file a 

joint status statement addressing whether the stay should be lifted. The parties

subsequently filed separate status statements. Having reviewed those status 

statements, the court finds that good cause exists to lift the stay and hereby does so. 

The clerk shall reopen the case. 

The court is also in receipt of two motions filed by the defendant. First, defendant 

moves for permission to file electronically. The motion is DENIED as moot because the 

court has previously granted the same request. See Dkt. 78. Second, on December 2, 

2018, while this action was still stayed, defendant filed a “Motion for Constitutional 

Redress and Damages and Summary Judgment for Patent Infringement,” with a January 

2, 2019 hearing. See Dkt. 89. That motion was untimely because the stay had not yet 

been lifted. The motion also violated L.R. 7-2(a) because defendant set it for hearing 

less than 35 days after it was filed. 

The court, however, does find that that the most efficient next step is for the 

parties to file summary judgment motions. Those motions shall be briefed in accordance 

Case 4:13-cv-01248-PJH Document 90 Filed 12/03/18 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

with the following schedule:

• December 21, 2018: Deadline for plaintiff to file its motion for 

summary judgment, if any; 

• January 16, 2019: Deadline for the parties to file any oppositions to 

the summary judgment motions; 

• January 23, 2019: Deadline for the parties to file any reply in 

support of the summary judgment motions; and

• February 20, 2019: Hearing on the parties’ motions for summary 

judgment in Courtroom 3, on the 3rd floor of the Federal Building, 

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. The court notes, however, 

that due to its schedule, it may vacate this hearing date and decide

the motions on the papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2018

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-01248-PJH Document 90 Filed 12/03/18 Page 2 of 2