Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07159/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07159-6/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORMFACTOR, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 MICRONICS JAPAN CO., LTD. ET AL,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07159 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

SHORTEN TIME AND

REQUIRING PARTIES TO MEET

AND CONFER

The Court has received Defendants’ motion to shorten time on briefing and hearing its

motion to stay the proceedings pending possible proceedings before the International Trade

Commission (“ITC”). 

In some circumstances, a court must stay a civil action in favor of ITC proceedings. See

28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). That statute does not apply in this case, however, because, as the

proceedings have not yet begun, Defendants are not parties to the ITC proceeding. See 28

U.S.C. § 1659(a). Although that statute does not apply, “the power to stay proceedings is

incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N.

Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of a

sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Accordingly, it is

within this Court’s discretion to determine whether a stay is warranted.

Case 3:06-cv-07159-JSW Document 48 Filed 12/06/07 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

2

Some of the competing interests that a district court must weigh in deciding whether to

grant a stay include: (1) “possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2)

“the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3)

“the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,

proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. at 268 (citing

Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 

In this matter, the Court finds the motion to stay premature and therefore DENIES

Defendants’ motion to shorten time to hear the motion to stay. The parties represent that any

institution of an ITC investigation involving FormFactor will be made by December 13, 2007. 

At that time, the Court may be able properly to assess the validity of the now pending motion to

stay. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the parties meet and confer to stipulate to the delay of

impending dates (as they have already done with respect to a brief extension of time for the

preparation of the joint claim construction statement) in order to allow the parties to address the

motion to stay fully without the unnecessary expenditure of the Court’s and the parties’

resources before a determination is made by this Court on the motion to stay. The Court is

amenable to granting any stipulation of the parties which saves the parties’ resources prior to

making a fair determination on what will then be a ripe motion to stay.

In this regard, the Court SETS the hearing on Defendants’ motion to stay for February 1,

2008 at 9:00 a.m. An opposition shall be filed no later than December 21, 2007, and a reply

shall be filed no later than January 4, 2008.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-07159-JSW Document 48 Filed 12/06/07 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

3

If the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, it

will so advise the parties in advance of the hearing date. If the parties wish to modify this

schedule, they may submit for the Court’s consideration a stipulation and proposed order

demonstrating good cause for any modification requested. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07159-JSW Document 48 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3