Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01484/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01484-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1

15-CV-1484 JLS (KSC)

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

PALOMAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MRSI SYSTEMS, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-1484 JLS (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

LIFT STAY

(ECF No. 38)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Palomar Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for 

Relief from the Court’s June 6, 2016 Order, to Lift the Stay of this Action and to set a Case 

Management Conference. (“Lift Mot.,” ECF No. 38-1.)

On June 6, 2016, the Court issued an Order staying this patent infringement case 

pending resolution of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) filed by Defendant on October 13, 

2015. (Id. at 2.) On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) 

issued a Final Written Decision affirming forty-seven out of forty-eight of the ’327 patent’s 

claims as valid over Defendant’s arguments. (Id. (citing Ex. A).) Defendant did not seek 

review or appeal of the USPTO’s decision, and thus this decision became final on May 31, 

2017. (Id.) 

The Court’s June 6, 2016 Order provides that the stay in this case will not be lifted 

until the issuance of the Certificate informing the Court of the USPTO’s decision. (Id.

Case 3:15-cv-01484-JLS-KSC Document 41 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-CV-1484 JLS (KSC)

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

(citing ECF No. 36, at 12–13).) However, Plaintiff notes that the IPR proceeding and any 

potential appeal have concluded at this point, save the purely administrative task of issuing 

the IPR Certificate. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks to lift the stay at this point, before issuance 

of the IPR Certificate, and to set a Case Management Conference. (Id. at 5.) Notably, 

Defendant MRSI Systems, LLC has filed a notice of non-opposition, and likewise seeks to 

lift the stay in this case. (ECF No. 40, at 2.) Defendant also notes that it has separately 

moved to dismiss this case or transfer this action in light of the Supreme Court’s recent 

decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). 

(Id. (citing ECF No. 39).)

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay (ECF 

No. 38). Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay of litigation in this case. The parties 

SHALL contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Karen C. Crawford for the purpose of 

setting a Case Management Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01484-JLS-KSC Document 41 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2