Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06272/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06272-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

INTELLISOFT, LTD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06272-PJH 

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 95, 98, 115

There are currently three motions pending before the court. Defendants Acer 

America Corporation and Acer Inc. (together, “Acer”) have filed a motion for attorneys’ 

fees, Dkt. No. 95, and a motion to amend judgment, Dkt. No. 98. Those motions are now 

fully briefed and set for hearing on April 24, 2019. In addition, plaintiff Intellisoft, Ltd, and 

counter-defendant Bruce Bierman (together, “Intellisoft”) have filed a motion objecting to 

Acer’s Bill of Costs and/or requesting the court stay enforcement of those costs pending 

appeal. Dkt. No. 115. In response, Acer filed a reply in support of its Bill of Costs. 

Dkt. No. 121. Having reviewed the pending motions, carefully considered the arguments 

therein and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby 

rules as follows. 

On December 6, 2018, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Acer on 

Intellisoft’s misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, accounting, and 

intentional misrepresentation claims. Dkt. No. 86. On February 4, 2019, pursuant to 

stipulation, the court entered final judgment against Intellisoft on its operative complaint 

and in favor of Acer on its counterclaim for declaratory relief. Dkt. No. 92. As 

Case 4:17-cv-06272-PJH Document 123 Filed 04/10/19 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

contemplated by the parties’ stipulation, the next day, Intellisoft filed a notice of appeal to 

the Federal Circuit. Dkt. Nos. 93-94. That appeal remains pending. 

The court finds that the issues presented in the pending motions depend on Acer’s 

prevailing party status and, therefore, resolution of those motions should await the 

conclusion of Intellisoft’s pending appeal. Accordingly, 

1. the hearing set for April 24, 2019, is VACATED;

2. Intellisoft’s request to stay enforcement of the Bill of Costs is GRANTED;

and 

3. Acer’s motion for attorneys’ fees and its motion to amend judgment, as well 

as Intellisoft’s objections to the Bill of Costs are DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

No later than 60 days after the appeal of judgment is resolved, the parties may, if 

necessary, revise and refile the motions denied herein. If Intellisoft chooses not to renew 

its objections to the Bill of Costs, or otherwise fails to seek a continuance, the stay on 

enforcement will expire 60 days after Intellisoft’s appeal is resolved. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06272-PJH Document 123 Filed 04/10/19 Page 2 of 2