Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04908/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04908-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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 

FINJAN, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-04908-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF CASE 

Re: Dkt. No. 68 

 On December 9, 2015, this court entered an order staying this case in light of 

thirteen petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) filed by defendant Palo Alto Network 

(“PAN”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The parties stipulated to the 

stay, which was to continue until the PTAB issued its last decision on whether or not to 

institute PAN’s IPR petitions. See Dkt. 67. At that time, the parties were to file a joint 

status report including their “respective positions on next steps for the litigation, including 

whether the stay should be lifted or continued based on the PTAB’s decisions.” Dkt. 67, 

p. 2. On May 16, 2016, the PTAB issued its final decision on whether to institute PAN’s 

IPR petitions. On May 23, 2014, the parties filed their joint status report on whether the 

stay should be lifted. See Dkt. No. 68. 

 The PTAB decided to institute six of PAN’s IPR petitions, affecting 4 of the 10 

asserted patents in this case. Courts consider three factors when determining whether to 

grant a stay pending IPR: “(1) whether discovery is complete and 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 

Case 4:14-cv-04908-PJH Document 69 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

non-moving party.” Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 13–cv–04202–

SI, 2014 WL 261837, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2014); Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal 

Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1030-31 (C.D. Cal. 2013). “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). 

 Having reviewed the positions of the parties in the joint status report, the court 

concludes that the stay should remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the 

instituted IPRs. Clearly, the case should be stayed with respect to the 4 asserted patents 

currently under review by PTAB. A final decision by the PTAB could completely invalidate 

a number of claims of those patents. Allowing the suit to proceed only with respect to 6 of 

the 10 asserted patents would be cumbersome, and proceeding in such a piecemeal 

fashion could lead to duplicative efforts in discovery and claim construction. 

All of the factors favor a continued stay in this case. The case remains at an early 

stage: although some discovery has taken place, infringement contentions have not yet 

been served. The instituted petitions are likely to greatly streamline the issues in this 

case, either by invalidating claims of the asserted patents or by narrowing claim 

constructions. The additional delay will be less than one year, and is unlikely to prejudice 

Finjan. Finjan’s claims of harm to its licensing market are speculative, and in any event 

these asserted lost profits could be recouped by appropriate monetary relief should 

Finjan ultimately prevail in this case. 

// 

 

Case 4:14-cv-04908-PJH Document 69 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

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 

ST

bu

pa

For the

TAYED unti

siness days

rties shall f

IT IS S

Dated:

e foregoing 

l the PTAB 

s of the fina

file a joint st

SO ORDER

 May 26, 20

reasons, h

issues its f

al determina

tatus report

RED. 

016 

3

having revie

final ruling o

ation on the

t, informing

__

PH

Un

ewed the pa

on the insti

e instituted

g the court o

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

apers, the c

ituted IPR p

IPRs, inclu

of the final 

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

case is here

petitions. W

uding any a

decision in 

__________

udge 

eby 

Within seven

appeals, the

the IPRs.

_______ 

n

e

Case 4:14-cv-04908-PJH Document 69 Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 3