Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02894/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02894-7/pdf.json

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

---

1 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359; -02360; -02894; -02895; 5:15-cv-00165; -00166; -00167; -00168 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN RELATED 

CASES 

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

HTC CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02359-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 73) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HTC CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02360-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 89) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02894-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 118) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 PLAINTIFF, 

V.

KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02895-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 120) 

Case 5:14-cv-02894-PSG Document 164 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359; -02360; -02894; -02895; 5:15-cv-00165; -00166; -00167; -00168 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN RELATED 

CASES 

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

For the Northern District of California

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00165-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 150) 

) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00166-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 153) 

) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00167-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 162) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00168-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

APPEAL IN RELATED CASES

(Re: Docket No. 125) 

Over the past three years, Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc. has filed over 35 cases in multiple “waves” 

of litigation in this court and the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that LTE handset 

manufacturers and wireless carriers infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,748 and 7,454,212. Suffice it 

to say that Adaptix lost the first wave of cases: on February 2, 2015, the court entered final 

Case 5:14-cv-02894-PSG Document 164 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359; -02360; -02894; -02895; 5:15-cv-00165; -00166; -00167; -00168 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN RELATED 

CASES 

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

For the Northern District of California

judgment after granting summary judgment of non-infringement and partial summary judgment of

invalidity.

Defendants HTC America, Inc., HTC Corporation, AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco 

Partnership, Sprint Spectrum LP, Kyocera Corporation, Boost Mobile, T-Mobile USA, Inc. and 

ZTE (USA), Inc. now seek a stay in these cases pending resolution of an appeal in the Wave 1 

cases now before the Federal Circuit.

1

 Adaptix opposes. Because the court is not convinced that a 

stay would enhance efficiency or avoid any undue prejudice to Defendants, the motion is DENIED. 

I.

A court’s discretionary power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in 

every court to control the disposition of causes of action on its docket with economy of time and 

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”2

 A stay pending appeal of a related case is 

appropriate if the disposition of the related case may “narrow the issues in the pending case and 

assist in the determination of the questions of law involved.”3 The moving party “must make out a 

clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility 

that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.”4 

 On January 20, 2015, the court granted the Wave I Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment of no direct infringement.5 Citing the recently issued decision in Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link 

Systems, Inc., the court held that “[u]nder Ericsson, even if [Defendants] supply handsets 

 

1 The “Wave 1” cases are: 5:13-cv-01776, 5:13-cv-01777, 5:13-cv-01778, 5:13-cv-01844, 5:13-cv02023. Defendants Verizon Wireless and Dell Inc. filed notices of joinder to Defendants’ motion. 

See Case No. 5:14-cv-01259: Docket Nos. 170, 175. Dell Inc. has since been dismissed from this 

case. See Case No. 5:14-cv-01259: Docket No. 182. The motion is DENIED as to Defendant 

Verizon Wireless, as well.

2 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

3 Id. at 253; accord Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). 

4 Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. 

5 See Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 402. 

Case 5:14-cv-02894-PSG Document 164 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359; -02360; -02894; -02895; 5:15-cv-00165; -00166; -00167; -00168 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN RELATED 

CASES 

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

For the Northern District of California

preprogrammed to perform multiple claimed steps, Defendants must still perform at least one step 

of a claimed method themselves to be held liable for direct infringement. Because there is no 

genuine dispute that Defendants perform no such step, Defendants’ motions must be GRANTED.”6

 

Three days later, the court also granted Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of 

invalidity, ruling that claims 8 and 9 of the ’748 patent and claims 9 and 10 of the ’212 patent are 

indefinite.7

 As is its right, Adaptix has appealed the court’s rulings to the Federal Circuit.8 

II.

 This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The parties further 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

III. 

When exercising its discretionary power to stay proceedings, the court “must weigh 

competing interests and maintain an even balance.”9 “Among these competing interests are the 

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a 

party may suffer in being required to go forward, and 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.”10 Weighing these competing interests here, the court cannot say 

that a stay is warranted. 

 

6 See id. at 3 (citing 2014 WL 6804861 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014)).

7 See Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 408 at 1 (“the ‘each cluster’ term might mean several 

different things and no informed and confident choice is available among the contending 

definitions.”). 

8 See Case No. 5:13-cv-01776: Docket No. 440. 

9 Id. 

10 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 

Case 5:14-cv-02894-PSG Document 164 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359; -02360; -02894; -02895; 5:15-cv-00165; -00166; -00167; -00168 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN RELATED 

CASES 

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

For the Northern District of California

First, while there are some overlapping claims that may be resolved in full at the Federal 

Circuit, there are other claims that clearly will not. Complete overlap is not required, and 

Defendants point out that in both waves of cases, Adaptix generically accuses network-operated 

handsets using Qualcomm baseband processors of infringing the asserted patents through their use 

of “Mode 3 CQI reporting” as defined in the 3GPP LTE standard. While issue preclusion could 

limit Adaptix from relitigating these accusations—as well as indefiniteness—here,

11 Defendants 

ignore that Adaptix brings a host of other claims that are not at issue in the appeal, namely direct 

infringement of method claims by individuals on behalf of or controlled by Defendants, direct 

infringement of apparatus claims, contributory infringement of method and apparatus claims and 

invalidity of claims not already decided.12 Because a fair number of claims will ultimately be 

unaffected by the Federal Circuit’s determination, the court does not see any efficiency in halting 

these cases in the meantime. 

Second, while Defendants undoubtedly face the prospect of defending certain issues that 

may be resolved by the Federal Circuit in their favor, “being required to defend a suit . . . does not 

constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity.’”13 The court is not persuaded that the additional 

discovery burden from the overlapping issues will be so great as to outweigh the court’s interest in 

moving this case forward. However limited the cognizable damage to Adaptix from a stay, a trial 

date is set for August 2016, the court has construed claims multiple times and the parties have 

already exchanged voluminous document productions. As tempting as it is for the court to put the 

 

11 See Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 

1296, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharms, Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 

1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

12 See Case No. 5:14-cv-02359: Docket No. 77. 

13 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Case 5:14-cv-02894-PSG Document 164 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 6
Case 5:14-cv-02894-PSG Document 164 Filed 08/06/15 Page 6 of 6