Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03150/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03150-8/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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO STAY—No. C-09-3150 RMW

TER

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 7/26/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CELLECTRICON AB and GYROS AB, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

FLUXION BIOSCIENCES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. C-09-3150 RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO

STAY

[Re Docket No. 65]

Defendant Fluxion Biosciences, Inc. moves to stay the litigation pending the USPTO's

decision on requests for reexamination of the patents in suit. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The

court heard the motion on July 23, 2010, and having considered the papers submitted by the parties

and the arguments at hearing, and for good cause appearing, defendant's motion is granted except

that defendant is required to file and serve its invalidity contentions and provide the product accused

of infringement for inspection if reasonably feasible.

Defendant has filed requests for reexamination of each of the four patents in suit. The

USPTO is required to act on those requests within three months and defendant seeks a temporary

stay of the litigation until such time as the PTO has acted on the reexamination requests. Defendant

candidly admits that if the PTO agrees to reexamine any of the patents in suit, defendant will file

another motion to stay pending completion of the reexamination proceedings. In the meantime,

Case 5:09-cv-03150-RMW Document 84 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO STAY—No. C-09-3150 RMW

TER 2

defendant contends that the litigation should be temporarily stayed to save the parties and the court

from what could be the unnecessary expenditure of resources. Plaintiffs disagree, however, arguing

that the motion is premature since the PTO has not yet agreed to reexamine the patents. Plaintiffs

also suggest that a stay is unwarranted and would be prejudicial to their rights to enforce the patents.

The court has discretion to stay a patent case pending reexamination. Viskase Corp. v.

American Nat'l Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001). When determining the

appropriateness of a stay pending reexamination, the court considers several factors: (1) whether a

stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party, (2)

whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case, and (3) whether discovery is

complete and whether a trial date has been set. Ultra Products, Inc. v. Antec, Inc., 201 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 50096, *3 (N.D. Cal. April 26, 2010); In re Cygnus Telecom. Tech., LLC Patent Litig., 385

F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

The court concludes that a stay is warranted at this time for at least 90 days to allow the

Director of the PTO to determine "whether a substantial new question of patentability" has been

raised. See 35 U.S.C. §312(a). First, it does not appear that the relatively brief stay requested by

defendant will impose an undue burden on plaintiffs, nor has discovery advanced significantly or a

trial date been set. Although the PTO's decision whether "a substantial new question" has been

raised will have no direct effect on the claims or issues in this litigation, it may provide more

information on the likelihood that a final decision on any re-examination will impact the validity or

scope of the patents. If the Director advises that "a substantial new question" has been raised, the

court can evaluate the strength of that finding and make a decision on whether to stay the litigation

further. 

Another factor favoring a stay is the cost and resource savings that will result from staying

the litigation if the patents are ultimately found to be invalid. Defendant apparently has limited

resources. The short duration of any temporary stay will not delay plaintiffs significantly, unless the

pending action by the PTO suggests a significant possibility that one or more of the patents will be

modified in scope or declared invalid. Further, the initial action by the PTO may indicate the

materiality of the new art that defendant claims invalidates.

Case 5:09-cv-03150-RMW Document 84 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO STAY—No. C-09-3150 RMW

TER 3

The defendant has apparently carefully reviewed the patents, prepared claim charts and set

forth its invalidity position in its re-examination requests. Therefore, defendant should be able to

provide the invalidity contentions under the Patent Local Rules without undue expense. This would

allow plaintiffs to review defendant's contentions during the period of the stay. Similarly, defendant

is to provide a sample of the accused product for plaintiffs' review if doing so is reasonably feasible.

The court will revisit the stay at a status conference to be held on October 8, 2010 at 10:30

a.m. The parties shall file a joint status conference statement on or before October 1, 2010 to report

on the status of the PTO's treatment of the reexamination requests and to address their respective

positions with regard to whether the stay should be continued, lifted, or modified at that time.

DATED: 7/26/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-03150-RMW Document 84 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 3